25 Replies to “Richard Gage on ‘Close Up,’ Friday the 27th of November, 2009”

  1. Pretty unquestioning ‘reportage’ by Mike Hoskings.

    Also, smooth move by Gage: ‘..gives them the possibility, the plausibility…’; a classic move where, in the space of a few words, ‘possible’ gets redefined as ‘probable.’

    1. Matthew, perhaps you might consider referencing in your thesis the theory most deserving of the title ‘conspiracy theory’.

      I’m referring to the wild, unsubstantiated theory that Arab terrorists who could barely fly a smaller plane, armed with boxcutters conspired together and took over airliners, flew them with expert precision into the buildings, in the case of the Pentagon flew the airliner inches from the lawn not leaving a mark nor leaving any fuselage, engines or wings. Making the towers fall at freefall and near freefall speed, violating the laws of physics, and when the towers were exploding, ejecting beams hundreds of feet laterally and pulverising thousands of tonnes of concrete, somehow the passports of the hijackers were found unscathed at the base of the towers (haha) Also Norad coincidently were practicing the very same scenario as ‘war games’ thus the radio alerts were ignored as part of the games, thus no military intervention. Also the london train bombings involved the military and emergency services conducting wargames practising the very same train bombing scenario at the same time it actually happened, thus military and emergency services didn’t respond. The chances of both 911 and the train bombings having the corresponding war game scenarios coinciding with the events in reality are too astronomical to contemplate, making it virtually impossible to be coincidence.
      Apart from the hard physics proof of controlled demolition, the rest of the circumstantial evidence is so overwhelming, it’s mind-boggling to believe that there are people who still believe in the official Government ‘CONSPIRACY THEORY”

  2. Gage really plays down the implications, doesn’t he? On one hand he thinks only a meticulously orchestrated controlled demolition could plausible cause the type of collapse we see, he fingers an opportunity for a conspiracy to plant the nanothermite (which gets left out of this discussion entirely) on the other he says nothing about what could be a motive for such a course of action and skirts around the obvious implication that there’s some effective and secret body which orchestrated all of this, on his view.

    1. Marinus, ONLY a controlled demolition could cause the collapses, this is proven fact.
      I shall enlighten you:

      FACT 1: The north tower  accelerated through the lower section at a uniform 64% freefall, which means that the lower section exerted resistance equal to 36% of the weight of the upper section, Newton’s third law of equal and opposing forces states that the top block thus exerted 36% of it’s weight, which means it’s exerting much less force than when supported at rest. This means a large portion of the resistance was removed by explosives.
      Also the top section after collapsing the distance of 1 story did not slow at all upon encountering the intact lower section. This is impossible as a falling mass cannot crush MORE resistance and maintain the same speed, it slows. The mass continued to accelerate uniformly proving explosive demolition.

      FACT 2: The top section of the North Tower almost fully disintegrated before the lower section started to explode downward, this disintegration would absorb any momentum and expelled the mass laterally, there was NO piledriver left to cause any kind of gravitational collapse!!!


      FACT3: The top section of the south tower topples to an angle of 22 degrees. Basic physics shows that the shift in center of mass due to the angle means that any torque imparted by gravitational pressure on the lower section accelerates the rotation of the top mass. The base of the top section acting as a fulcrum. The more gravitational pressure the top section provides, the more toppling would occur. discontinuation of toppling proves the removal of resistance, disproving gravity induced collapse and proving explosives.
      An off centre, leaning mass CANNOT cause a symmetric collapse.

      FACT 4: The symmetric, even collapse of WTC7 is IMPOSSIBLE without demolition as all structural supports must be removed simultaneously across each floor, and this repeated in sequence for each successive floor.this is impossible in a collapse resulting from structural or fire damage, as such causes result in organic uneven damage. even a slight integrity inequality ALWAYS leads to a messy uneven and in most cases partial collapse.

      FACT 5: The 2.5 seconds of Freefall in WTC7 that NIST admits to is IMPOSSIBLE without Controlled demolition as all structural supports must be removed ahead of the collapse front, otherwise ANY intact structural resistance would slow the collapse to a rate less than freefall.

      FACT 6: Office fires don’t burn hot enough to weaken the steel. Steel has a high thermal conductivity, the large steel frame would draw away heat rapidly from hot spots. Quote from the FEMA report (Appendix A). “Recalling that the North Tower suffered no major structural damage from the intense office fire of February 23, 1975, we can conclude that the ensuing office fires of September 11, 2001, also did little extra damage to the towers.” 
      No steel high-rise has ever collapsed from fire.

      FACT 7. Nanothermite a high-tech military-grade explosive was found throughout the WTC dust and analysed by top scientists, and published in the peer reviewed Open Chemical Physics Journal.

    1. Hi, Kerry. I’ve approved both of these comments but, in future, could you add a little discussion to links if you post them. Otherwise it does look suspiciously like the spam links my spambot removes.

  3. Ah yes, the usual bunch of retarded debunkers rear their ugly head here. The fact is Controlled demolition is irrefutably, scientifically proven. There’s no need to speculate on motive to authorise a full, proper investigation, the fact that it was an inside job is proven.

    As far as motive goes, duh!!! OBVIOUSLY it was to provide an excuse to invade Afghanistan and Iraq and grab their oil and control Afghanistan’s drug trade and make billions. Not to mention the excuse to remove the freedoms and liberties of citizens in preparation for the implementation of the imminent one world government, I mean seriously, it’s mind-meltingly obvious! (To any objective person with an IQ over 50)

      1. There is no masquerading, it is he truth. The ad hominem is an accurate description as no objective intelligent person could possibly believe anything other than what I outlined.

        No true Scotsman? I believe you don’t understand the fallacy in question. My explanation did not involve the afore-mentioned fallacy,please point out where it did, thank you Matthew.

        By the way, if you need me to prove controlled demolition with basic physics, I’d be happy to, but then you’d probably censor it.

        1. I don’t censor (apart from spam). The ‘No True Scotsman’ Fallacy is your comment ” mean seriously, it’s mind-meltingly obvious! (To any objective person with an IQ over 50)”

          And as to your restatement of the “no objective intelligent person…” line; it must really frustrate that most of us don’t think you’ve got much of an argument.

          1. That is not a true scotsman fallacy Matthew. An example of the fallacy would be if I said “only Americans who are unobjective and/or have an IQ less than 50 disbelieve my conclusion”. Then I find an American who is objective and has an IQ over 50, and disbelieves my conclusion and then say ” only ‘true’ Americans who are unobjective and/or have an IQ less than 50 disbelieve my conclusion”.

            There is no post facto reference as a response to finding someone who contradicts my initial statement.

          2. You’ve got the post facto thing wrong, and what you said is a version of the ‘No True Scotsman;’ you’re ruling out of court the notion that anyone could disagree with your ‘argument.’

          3. I haven’t got the post facto thing wrong.
            You’re missing the point that it’s only a fallacy if the definition is adjusted in response to finding a contradiction, I’m sorry Matthew but that’s the actual definition of the fallacy.

          4. That’s a definition, yes, but the scope of the fallacy is actually much wider than the textbook case (and, indeed, textbooks galore elaborate on the variations of the fallacy); it is not as cut-and-dried as you seem to think.

            As for my being a paid blogger working for the Government… If only I was paid… And which Government? Or do you mean the nascent and fictitious One World Government?

            As for my thesis. If you actually bothered to check out what the thesis was on (which isn’t a hard task on this blog) you’d see that it is an examination of Conspiracy Theories, as a species of explanation, and what it would take for one of them to be considered warranted. I really don’t care all that much about your particular Conspiracy Theory; I’m more interested in what kind of work, generally, needs to be done to sort the good from the bad explanations. Nothing about your explanation, including the weird appeal to Science, indicates to me that your theory is better than the official story and it certainly doesn’t pass the burden of proof test.

            You’d also learn that my definition of a Conspiracy Theory is any explanation that cites a Conspiracy and I’m tempted to call anyone who believes in at least one Conspiracy Theory a Conspiracy Theorist. Given that everyone of us believes in at least one (no matter our differences in regard to the explanation of 9/11, the official story and the ‘Inside Job’ hypothesis are Conspiracy Theories) I’m quite willing to say we’re all Conspiracy Theorists; it’s just that some of us have warranted Conspiracy Theory beliefs and some of us do not.

            Another point; Science cannot prove a Conspiracy; all it can do is provide an explanation of how the event was done rather than why it was done, and by who. The answer to the ‘Who and why did they do it?’ question is the positing of the Conspiracy itself, the positing of Conspirators and their attendant goal. Conspiracy Theories are social explanations, not scientific ones, and are very hard to substantiate.

          5. “weird appeal to science” Really, science is factual and your irrational description indicates you’re more interested in the irrational, scientifically inaccurate official theory.

            Science, fact and logic sorts the good from the bad explanations. If it were up to you politics would sort out the good from the bad as it does in the mainstream media and the corrupted halls of Academia.

            You’re entirely wrong, science can prove a conspiracy theory, science proves it was controlled demolition, and logic dictates that only members of the upper echelons of the Government would have access to 3 of the most secure buildings in the world, ERGO it was an inside job. THAT is the conspiracy theory, the specifics of exactly who did what are superfluous in proving the conspiracy theory.

            According to your definition that conspiracy theories are social explanations not scientific ones, Gage’s theory is not a conspiracy theory, as it is scientifically based and doesn’t attempt to ascertain who did what, merely that it was controlled demolition and an inside job, thus I’m wondering why you’re even involving this video in the discussion.

            Academia and the mainstream scientific establishment is corrupt to the core, people tow the political line in order to gain funding and keep their jobs, or to get a PHD.

            For instance emails between top Global Warming scientists have leaked worldwide revealing the dishonesty behind the Anthropogenic Global Warming scam (it is fact that CO2 does not drive climate, global temps are cooling CO2 is rising, Oceanic cycles and solar radiation drive climate)

            Dr Steven Jones a top scientist lost his job when he spoke out on 911. Academics tend to be political whores.

            Your tone and reasoning makes it fairly obvious you are politically compromised as any academic worth their salt would give weight to facts and logic, and not claim that they do nothing to refute an impossible, ridiculous official story.

            I don’t know how you sleep at night knowing you’re supporting evil, greedy nasty criminals hellbent on destroying civilisation as we know it and murdering millions.
            How does it feel to not be contributing to the world but taking away from it? Your mum must be proud of you.

            I must leave you with that thought, I won’t be replying.

          6. Given that you won’t be replying that saves me the both of trying to point out to you that you’re wrong about CO2, wrong about ‘Climategate,’ wrong about the Ivory Tower and mistaken about just how decisive Science is when it comes to sorting between theories of this type. All I will say is that Science is a useful tool for sorting out, in Conspiracy Theories, which explanation has the best material grounds, but it is just a tool. You elevate it to something it is not, which is odd because given your claims about Anthropogenic Climate Change you obviously don’t think much of Science. If you did value Science you would value what it tells us, which is that the climate is changing and it is largely anthropogenic in nature.

            Still, it is useful this conversation between us is over. I can close comments off on this post whilst I am away, which saves me some degree of time spent on moderation.

          7. Perhaps my approach was a little bit adversarial.

            Rather than us endlessly quibble over irrelevancies. My main contention is that the facts prove Controlled demolition, which is why Gage does not classify himself as a conspiracy theorist.
            I can understand why people with a certain mindset get drawn to conspiracy theories, but that fact should not detract from a scientifically and logically-based conclusion that happens to be a conclusion that habitual ‘conspiracy theorists’ share.

            In other words, if the science proves a conspiracy, then it’s no longer a wild theory proposed by paranoid types.

          8. The fact that most of you don’t think I have an argument shows that you’re either incapable of grasping simple physics and logic, or you’re politically compromised and choose to ignore the facts.

            Feel free to try and refute the facts I’ve espoused proving controlled demolition. This is a good test to see whether you’re truly pursuing a thesis on conspiracy theories with an objective mindset or whether you’re a paid blogger, merely spreading propaganda for the Government.

    1. Rather than avoid the proof of controlled demolition, argue the point because, my comments are actually the point, and avoiding the facts doesn’t make you look good.

  4. Provide an actual argument that isn’t a cut-and-paste from elsewhere and maybe I’ll consider it. Just asserting x is y isn’t an argument.

    As for the Pentagon flight leaving no fuselage; that’s just not true. Emergency services, TV crews and so forth all report seeing the wreckage of the plane. If you make unsubstantiated comments like that, can you not see that I (and others) just aren’t to want to have to spend time on you?

    1. Just some eyewitness accounts of people that could be politically compromised are insufficient, you should know that.
      Would you care to address the facts I put forth regarding the collapses? 🙂

    2. By the way, they’re my comments not cut and pasted from elsewhere, even if they were cut and pasted that in no way affects their validity – basic logic.

Comments are closed.