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 ... 26, 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
Keenan



Joined: 03 Mar 2006
Posts: 21
Location: California

PostPosted: Thu May 28, 2009 7:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rumpl4skn wrote:
"Changing your mind is proof that you're thinking." - Sting


Oh, so according to that logic, if I changed my mind and decided to believe that the Earth is flat and that the universe revolves around the Earth and that the moon is made of cheese, I would become the most brilliant being on this planet, right?

It's dumb asses like yourself that provide Fintan with his ready-made echo chamber, where he can count on his loyal supporters to rally round whatever nonsense he spews, no matter how completely absurd and obviously dishonest his bs might be.

"Uncritically supporting a dishonest shill and bull shit artist, no matter how transparent he is, is proof that you're not thinking." - Keenan
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
hawkwind



Joined: 19 Jan 2006
Posts: 730

PostPosted: Thu May 28, 2009 7:34 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Rumpl4skn wrote:
"Changing your mind is proof that you're thinking." - Sting


Really good quote Rump. It is an important thought when trying to interpret the shit storm of information. Shocked

Let me give an example of the logic flaws still pervasive in the 911 "Mooment".

The IFC channel just broadcasted a new documentary about the "NWO". Unfortunately the star circus attraction was AJ but I will put aside my personal experiences to make my point. Overview here:

http://www.ifc.com/videos/sxsw-2009-new-world-order-1.php

Other than the fake unavailability of the video (it is easily available from bit torrent or free from IFC On-demand) ... there are immediate logic flaws to be found. At minute 6 of the video ... Jim Marrs emphatically states that JFK could not have been shot from the Texas Book Depository because an existing tree would have blocked the shot. WTF? The indecent happened 40 years ago for fuck sake and what was the state of this tree back then?? Total shit logic to discredit the whole honest questioning process.

I would like to think that I can reason at times. Arguments of "mind" or "metaphysics" are subject to POV, but fundamental physical laws of our reality can not be casually discarded.

I think Fintan has done a really great job of wading his way through the 911 shit storm and has remained on topic when dealing with the key issues. Sorry to disappoint anyone, but that's how it goes sometimes.

ROCK!

- Hawk Wink

_________________
"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
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 8143

PostPosted: Thu May 28, 2009 7:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Rumpl4skn wrote:
"Changing your mind is proof that you're thinking." - Sting

We launched an investigation of the 9/11 issues on the forum.
Lots of avenues were explored. I sure did discount a lot of tinfoil
rubbish theories but I never drew a conclusion on what was
the method of bringing down the towers.

There is no article or audio where I ever
said the Towers were brought down by a
Controlled Demolition. Not ever, never.

I tend to take a definitive position when
there is a total lack of evidence to do so.

However, I do now believe that on the
balance of the evidence it is most
likely they used the simplest method
possible to bring down the twin towers.
This one:

Hitting them accurately with angled
strikes at high speed by two great
big frikking jet planes full of thousands
of gallons of kerosene.

_________________
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
Keenan



Joined: 03 Mar 2006
Posts: 21
Location: California

PostPosted: Thu May 28, 2009 8:32 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

God you're pathetic, Fintan. Is this the best you can do?


Fintan wrote:
Quote:
Keenan:
Un fucking believable! So now, after 7 years of accumulated solid scientific evidence of the controlled demolition of the WTC....

"Solid scientific evidence"?? You must be joking.
You mean the laughable space beams?


Pathetic attempt at straw man bait and switch. I never said anything about space beams.

Quote:

Maybe you mean the ridiculous nanothermite?


Again, another pathetic attempt at straw man bait and switch. I never said anything about nanothermite.

Quote:

Or the host of pseudo-scientific BS which has been ripped apart.


No, just the best evidence, as provided by Richard Gage and A&E for 9/11 Truth. That plus your own eyes that can plainly see buildings being ripped apart and blown to kingdom come by synchronized explosives.

Quote:

Here's news.
The is NO solid scientific evidence for controlled demolition.

Oh, I see. So, I'm supposed to dismiss the research and evidence provided by experts in the field of architecture and physics and engineering and hundreds of credentialed engineers at A&E for 9/11 Truth and instead believe the nonsense spewed by the Great Fintan Dunne, whose recycled CIA PM bullshit explanations don't even begin to explain even a small part of the available evidnece? Oh, OK. Sure. So if Fintan Dunne says there is no solid scientific evidence than it must be true because Fintan Dunne knows better than Richard Gage, et al! Sure, I'll just defer to you, dear Fintan. Actually...um...NOT!

Quote:

That's why we are looking at other methodologies.

Sorry, were you offering an other methodology? Perhaps I just couldn't see it behind the enormous pile of CIA-inspired BULL SHIT that you are spewing...

Quote:

You've been sold a CIA-inspired Controlled Demolition CRAP TRAP.

Really? Got any evidence for this claim?

Quote:
Quote:
...ol' Fintan does a back flip and endorses the official government line
that fire and plane crashes are what brought down the towers afterall...

Wrong again.
Have I asked questions. Yes.
Have I considered Controlled Demolition. Yes.
Have I ever said it WAS a Controllled Demolition. No.
So no back flip.

You certainly implied that it was a reasonable explanation for many years.

Quote:
Quote:
despite how our own eyes can plainly see the two towers having been ripped apart and blown to kingdom come with syncrhonized detonations?

Maybe your eyes dude. Not mine.

Or are you just pretending to not see buildings being blown to kingdom come? Uh huh...

Quote:
Nor most people's.

Excuse me? care to back that up? Which "most people" are you referring to? The paid shills and apologists for the perps along with those citizenry who have not looked into the CD evidence but just accept the official party line? That must be what you are referring to, because the millions of people who have come to believe that 9/11 was an inside job certainly don't fit your claim.

Quote:

Do you really think the perps would be so dumb.

Sorry? The perps have already gotten away with it, so I'm not sure what you mean that they would have to be so dumb. What school of logic did you go to?

Quote:

This is not amateur hour dude. This was a PRO job.

Wow, here is something I absolutely agree with you on. This was definitely a pro job. Way better than the job they did at the Murrah building in '95.

Quote:

Quote:
Pancake collapse (have you forgotten that the old pancake collapse
theory was debunked so long ago that even NIST gave up that bull shit)?!

Wrong again, or lying deliberately again.
Show me where I endorsed pancake collapse.

Really? Let's review what you said earlier in this thread, shall we?

Quote:
Quote:

Air compression effects the floor immediately below it,
not a floor many floors down from it.


Unless the air comes down the evevator shafts or stairwells.


Quote:
4. Over 100 eyewitnesses heard explosions immediately prior to the collapse.


The sound of the floors collapsing.


Quote:
5. Steel beams weighing tons were ejected hundreds of feet outward.


Because they were driven by 500mph air escaping from between floors.


Quote:
9. Explosive squibs occurred 20-40 stories below the collapse wave, ruling out air compression and proving them to be separate explosions.


Unless the air came down the evevator shafts or stairwells.


Each of these standard CIA inspired explanations from the PM/Mainstream Media that you parroted were all based upon the pancake collapse model. It is intellectually dishonest for you to use these same explanation which are part of the pancake collapse theory, and then say, "Hey, I never said I support the pancake collapse theory"

Quote:

Nobody in alternative or mainstream believes that.

And yet you parrot the same pancake collapse related claims. Interesting...

Quote:
Quote:
Air pressure mysteriously being channeled down elevator shafts to only
specific floors and popping out windows 20 to 40 floors beneath the
fantom pancakes?!

Nothing mysterious about it. Simple physics of air presssure waves.

Oh, ok. Silly me! My bad! Just simple physics of air pressure waves. I guess I missed that in my physics class. I'll have to go back and read the chapter on how air can mysteriously contain itself in a channel surrounded by other air and then explode randomly through only one narrow air channel in an open office floor plan, or something. You dipshit. That's even more absurd than the magic bullet theory.

Quote:

Quote:
So, the author of "CIA Fakes" now provides us with undeniable proof
that he is in fact operating from the same exact playbook as the CIA
controlled mainstream media and Popular Mechanics and CIA agent
Chip Berlet? To the T?

Wrong again, or lying deliberately again.
The government and mainstream media and Popular Mechanics
are ALL saying it was a terrorist attack pure and simple.

Oh please, Fintan. Do we have to spell it out for you that the same ridiculous anti-CD explanations you parroted above matched exactly what the CIA inspired outlets/shills I mentioned said, to the T? Fintan, you're as intellectually dishonest as they come.

Quote:

I say it was an Inside Job by the G8/NWO.

Slight difference there in the two viewpoints don'cha think?


Another straw man bait and switch. We're talking about the CIA-inspired bullshit anti-CD explanations which you parrot to the T.

Quote:
Quote:
Fuck You, you piece of shit! What are you getting paid for serving as shill
and propogandist for the fascsist psychopaths? Mother fucking traitor! Tell
us why you deserve, in a future truth commission/war crimes trial, to be
punished any less severely than were douche bags like Joseph Gerbils?

In the absence of any coherent argument or even the intelligence to
realize that the perps are WAY smarter than you, it's not surprising
that you have to use raw abuse as a pathetic excuse for argument.

I'm not using "raw abuse as a pathetic excuse" for argument. Saying that you are a piece of shit for serving the interests of the perps is not an argument, it is a simple statement of fact about your agenda, you fucking piece of shit.

Quote:
Why would they use Controlled Demolition if they could bring down
both towers by carefully studying the blueprints and determining
that two perfectly angled plane strikes would bring the towers down??

But I didn't say that two perfectly angled plane strikes would bring the towers down. That would be you, along with the other pieces of shit operating from the same CIA playbook.

Quote:
That would be dumb of them.
And these people are not dumb.
Evil, yes, but not dumb.

See above.

Quote:
Far better for them to use the simplest method and then push the
Controlled Demolition thru their agents in the 9/11 movement -
thus suckering the whole movement into trying to prove something
that is not provable --because it never happened.


But you still haven't established that the simplest method wasn't CD, so the rest of your nonsense is a moot point. And, incidently, CD has already been proven by Richard Gage et all at A&E for 9/11 Truth. And, again, some dumb ass like a Fintan Dunne saying "it never happened" does not in any way shape or form constitute proof of anything. Dip shit.

Quote:

Then when the Controlled Demolition theory fails, the
whole 9/11 movement fails --despite the vast amount
of evidence that 9/11 was an inside job.

Oh, I wouldn't worry too much about the Controlled Demolition failing. There's more evidence being added to it every day, despite what douche bags like yourself are attempting to do.

Quote:
Wise up.
The CIA are playing you like a sap.

Actually, I think I've demonstrated quite clearly that the attempt by at least one CIA douche bag to play me like a fool as fallen flat on its face. Go back to shill school and get a new script, dip shit.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 8143

PostPosted: Thu May 28, 2009 9:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Still spewing abuse to cover
your flawed arguments, eh?

Quote:
God you're pathetic....
You dipshit......
you're as intellectually dishonest as they come.....
you fucking piece of shit......
you, along with the other pieces of shit......
dumb ass like a Fintan Dunne......
douche bags like yourself ........
CIA douche bag.....
get a new script, dip shit......

What are you going to be when you grow
up and your parents let you drive the car? Wink

Quote:
Quote:
Have I ever said it WAS a Controllled Demolition. No.
So no back flip.


You certainly implied that it was a reasonable explanation for many years.


Ah, so you admit I never said it was a Controlled Demolition.
It was a possible explanation, but after seven years of
investigation there's no hard evidence I'm afraid.

Quote:
all based upon the pancake collapse model.

Afraid not.

The pancake theory is that floors collapsing on each other caused
a pancaking which was the primary cause of the collapse. This
theory is now accepted as wrong by me and all interested parties.

I am and was saying that the disintegrating tops of the towers
as they fell were pushing air ahead of them. That air had nowhere
to go but down. And then out thru broken windows further down the
towers.

Quote:
just the best evidence, as provided by
Richard Gage and A&E for 9/11 Truth

I interviewed Richard and we had a polite and reasoned debate.
Thankfully he is capable of that -even if you are not. I hope you
are not a member of A&E --you give the group a bad name.

I've questioned Richard's take on 9/11, but in particular, his
bizarre free-fall claims undermine everything else he says.

You need to come up with something more
than abuse; falsification of my position; and
weak arguments.

Otherwise you will continue to come across
as a foul-mouthed pimply teenager with
little knowledge of the 9/11 issues.

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


Last edited by Fintan on Fri May 29, 2009 6:05 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website
Keenan



Joined: 03 Mar 2006
Posts: 21
Location: California

PostPosted: Thu May 28, 2009 10:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fintan wrote:
Still spewing abuse to cover
your flawed arguments, eh?


Saying my arguments are flawed without specifying which arguments are flawed and why is simply a baseless claim.
Quote:

It was a possible explanation, but after seven years of
investigation there's no hard evidence I'm afraid.


Repetition does not constitute proof. Just because you keep saying there is no hard evidence does not make it so, despite whatever mysterious authority you claim to have that supercedes the credibility of those way more credentialed than you, such as Richard Gage and other specialists who have put their arguments and evidence on the table. Incidently, this is precisely the same type of "argument" employed from the CIA playbook that the MSM, Chip Berlet, etc., consistently use: "There is no proof...there is no proof...there is no proof"...ad infinitum...
Dude, you are as transparent as they come. Embarassed

Quote:
I am and was saying that the disintegrating tops of the towers
as they fell were pushing air ahead of them. That air had nowhere
to go but down.

Down through 20 to 40 floors below? Why would it go way down when the shortest path is out immediately below the disintegrating tops of the towers?

Quote:
And then out thru broken windows further down the
towers.

Laughing First of all, 500 mph (according to you) air does not need broken windows to blow out. Second of all, the windows were not broken 20 to 40 stories below. You are obviously making shit up as you go and just pulling shit out of your ass.


Quote:
I've questioned Richard's take on 9/11, but in particular, his
bizarre free-fall claims undermine everything else he says.

No they don't. They fit perfectly well with everything else he says. Show me what is "bizarre" about the free-fall claims, and how they undermine everything else he says.

Quote:
You need to come up with something more
than abuse; falsification of my position; and
weak arguments.

Otherwise you will continue to come across
as a foul-mouthed pimply teenager with
little knowledge of the 9/11 issues.


But you haven't demonstrated that I have weak arguments, and I haven't falsified your position. You are the one who has demonstrated little knowledge of the 9/11 issues, even after supposedly writing and researching about it since day one. But, I actually don't think you are really that unknowledgeable. I think you are a pretender and not a very good one at that to be so transparently operating from the CIA playbook. Buy, hey, I bet PM would love to hire you.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 8143

PostPosted: Fri May 29, 2009 5:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Keenan:
Down through 20 to 40 floors below? Why would it go way down when the shortest path is out immediately below the disintegrating tops of the towers?

The top fell down thru the center of the outer frame, leaving no room for the trapped air to escape. Air pressures were extremely high ahead of the collapse, pushing air down the building.

Quote:
First of all, 500 mph (according to you) air does not need broken windows to blow out. Second of all, the windows were not broken 20 to 40 stories below. You are obviously making shit up as you go and just pulling shit out of your ass.

The air speeds on exiting from lower windows were much lower than 500mph. The initial plane impacts broke windows, lift shafts, partitioning, etc. --all over the buildings-- which you would know if you had read the eyewitness accounts extensively.

Quote:
whatever mysterious authority you claim to have that supercedes the credibility of those way more credentialed than you, such as Richard Gage

My knowledge of these issues arises from having written the first investigative articles within weeks after 9/11 and having been on the case since then full time.

Richard Gage only discovered the issue recently and clearly has huge gaps in his knowledge of the issues. Otherwise he would know that chunks of the top of the building --which fell down outside at free fall speed-- were impacting the Marriot Hotel while at least 45 to 50 stories of the building were still standing. So clearly the building cannot be said to have fallen at anything even close to free fall speed. Only the parts of the top which detached fell at free fall speed.

Don't let your mouth write checks your knowledge can't cash.

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


Last edited by Fintan on Fri May 29, 2009 11:50 pm; edited 1 time in total
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: Fri May 29, 2009 7:41 pm    Post subject: Interesting Message Reply with quote



Think about it ....

- 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
Keenan



Joined: 03 Mar 2006
Posts: 21
Location: California

PostPosted: Sat May 30, 2009 1:08 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fintan wrote:

The top fell down thru the center of the outer frame, leaving no room for the trapped air to escape. Air pressures were extremely high ahead of the collapse, pushing air down the building.

No it didn't. Look at the videos again. The top was shredded and blown up while the lower part of the building began to be shredded and blown up floor by floor all the way down. You are still making shit up. Stop lying. The only way the air pressures could have been extremely high ahead of the collapse is if there was a pancake collapse, which you say you don't think happened.


Quote:

The air speeds on exiting from lower windows were much lower than 500mph. The initial plane impacts broke windows, lift shafts, partitioning, etc. --all over the buildings-- which you would know if you had read the eyewitness accounts extensively.


No, the plane impacts did not break windows in the lower portions of the buildings. Video and photographic evidence clearly shows that beyond the floors immediately above and below the plane impacts, the windows remained intact. Why do you lie through your teeth so blatantly? Maybe your preferred audience is those who just believe what you say and don't look at the evidence for themselves?

Quote:
Quote:
whatever mysterious authority you claim to have that supercedes the credibility of those way more credentialed than you, such as Richard Gage

My knowledge of these issues arises from having written the first investigative articles within weeks after 9/11 and having been on the case since then full time.


You are not trained in the specialized fields of architecture, engineering, and physics which you would need to be for you to credibly claim to understand the forensic evidence better than Richard Gage and others at A&E911Truth. You have not done any scientific analysis or calculations to back up any nonsense you are spewing. You simply make baseless and ridiculous and demonstrably false claims and then expect people to just believe you over those who have much more credibility and knowledge and experience and have put their scientific analysis and calculations on the table. You are a fraud who operates from the CIA playbook.

Quote:
Richard Gage only discovered the issue recently and clearly has huge gaps in his knowledge of the issues. Otherwise he would know that chunks of the top of the building --which fell down outside at free fall speed-- were impacting the Marriot Hotel while at least 45 to 50 stories of the building were still standing.


Really? Can you provide video evidence of this to back up your claims?

Quote:
So clearly the building cannot be said to have fallen at anything even close to free fall speed.

"Even close to free fall speed? You are a blatant liar.

Quote:
Only the parts of the top which detached fell at free fall speed.

Patently false claim, yet again, as can be shown by the video evidence.

Quote:
Don't let your mouth write checks your knowledge can't cash.

You must be talking about yourself because it is obviously that you are clearly the one writing checks with your mouth that your knowledge can't cash. But, that is quite common with people operating from the CIA playbook.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
bri



Joined: 16 Jun 2006
Posts: 3184
Location: Capacious Creek

PostPosted: Sat May 30, 2009 1:25 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Keenan wrote:

Really? Can you provide video evidence of this to back up your claims?
"Even close to free fall speed? You are a blatant liar.
Patently false claim, yet again, as can be shown by the video evidence.



You're gonna make me post another damn 9/11 video?
See those chunks?
Those are falling at free fall speed.
The North Tower has barely started unwrapping itself by the time they hit some poor soul standing below.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fintan
Site Admin


Joined: 18 Jan 2006
Posts: 8143

PostPosted: Sat May 30, 2009 1:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Back to the abuse again, eh?
You managed to hold it together for one post.

Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Richard Gage only discovered the issue recently and clearly has huge gaps in his knowledge of the issues. Otherwise he would know that chunks of the top of the building --which fell down outside at free fall speed-- were impacting the Marriot Hotel while at least 45 to 50 stories of the building were still standing.


Really? Can you provide video evidence of this to back up your claims?

The photo of the building top hitting the Marriot Hotel has got to
be one of the most widely known photos of the WTC collapse.



You can go to Camera Planet yourself and find the video of that
WTC2 scene in the photo. The one where the cameraman is running
away and the camera swings back to see the first debris impact.

I'm not prepared to educate you personally about 9/11.
You've spewed too much ignorant abuse for me to care.
Have a nice life.

_________________
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
Keenan



Joined: 03 Mar 2006
Posts: 21
Location: California

PostPosted: Sat May 30, 2009 4:57 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fintan wrote:
Quote:
Quote:

Richard Gage only discovered the issue recently and clearly has huge gaps in his knowledge of the issues. Otherwise he would know that chunks of the top of the building --which fell down outside at free fall speed-- were impacting the Marriot Hotel while at least 45 to 50 stories of the building were still standing.


Really? Can you provide video evidence of this to back up your claims?

The photo of the building top hitting the Marriot Hotel has got to
be one of the most widely known photos of the WTC collapse.



You can go to Camera Planet yourself and find the video of that
WTC2 scene in the photo. The one where the cameraman is running
away and the camera swings back to see the first debris impact.


I asked for VIDEO evidence, not a snapshot. Your claim is that only the top pieces of the building that fell on the Marriot Hotel fell at free fall speed, while the rest of the building fell "not even close to free fall speed". Only a video that shows both the top pieces of the building falling along with the rest of the building falling in real time can answer that question, not a snapshot. You are manufacturing a straw man argument to pretend that I disputed simply the claim that parts of the building fell on the Marriot. That is not what I argued. I did not dispute that parts of the building fell on the Marriot, as you know full well. Yet again, you are intellectually dishonest to misrepresent my argument that way. Can't you just once honestly represent my argument and then answer my real argument, not your manufactured straw man argument? Are you capable of that?

Quote:

I'm not prepared to educate you personally about 9/11.
You've spewed too much ignorant abuse for me to care.
Have a nice life.


Oh please! Do you really think you can get away with this BS? You are so transparent, Fintan.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
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 ... 26, 27, 28, 29  Next
Page 27 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.