This is one of the photographs he uses. He more than implies that there was quite little damage to the building and that the fires weren't particularly intense.
How Richard Gage chooses to present the damage to WTC7
He never showed any of the pictures of the destruction on the south side of the building, which is a little odd given that this diagram, which he even used in his slideshow, shows there was quite likely considerable damage. As can be seen, debris from the collapsing south tower smashed into the south of the WTC7 building:
Looking at that diagram above, another objection that seems to be raised to the controlled demolition theory is this: How did the New World Order/Illuminati/Deep State USA 9/11 planners know that burning debris from the north tower would hit WTC7 and ignite fires there? This seems like an incredibly harebrained scheme which got lucky. It's possible that no fires could have resulted from the destruction of the north tower in which case there would have been no excuse for its sudden destruction.
He did tell me that he would have shown more of the destruction from different angles had he had more time but said he would email me pictures of the fires on the East side if I wanted them. I said that I was talking about the south side and asked him if he had seen the documentary, "Day of Disaster" - parts of which I had seen for the first time that day. If not I could email him parts of the programme.
It seems to me that being in denial about how much destruction had been done to the south side of the building (as well as the massive potential damage done to the interior is one of the main columns supporting his controlled demilition theory. Either he doesn't believe or simply won't concede that point.
Gage may well be correct in saying that there is little photographic evidence for damage to the south face, but that certainly doesn't mean there wasn't any damage and it doesn't mean he should give the audience that impression.
Here's a picture of the smoke and fire coming from the south face:
And it appears to be an old bone of contention between Truthers and Debunkers as this page shows.
Update: I wasn't aware of some of the video footage that appears here. It corroborates the eyewitness testimony that Gage denies and leaves his theory looking even more threadbare than ever. These videos both come from The Skeptical Idealist and I recommend you look at his channel.
26 comments:
Is it not a contradiction to critizise Mr. Gage for not showing photographs of the damage to the south face of the building and admitting at the same time that he may be correct in saying that there may not be such photos/evidence?
Is it not a contradiction to critizise Mr. Gage for not showing photographs of the damage to the south face of the building and admitting at the same time that he may be correct in saying that there may not be such photos/evidence?
The photographs are not extensive but those which do exist show the south face in much worse shape than those taken of its north face. I think he is right in saying there is little photographic evidence for the extent of structural damage that was reported but if he had shown a picture like this: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/4c/Abcnews-wtc7damage.jpg/225px-Abcnews-wtc7damage.jpg the audience would infer there was more damage than that shown of the north face.
Do you think falling debris caused this kind of damage? A few days ago i watched the video of the demolition of the Landmark Tower. In that video a row of explosions from the bottom to the top of the building is visible - going through the middle of the face of the building. My point is: could the visible damage of WTC7 be caused by that kind of explosions?
The damage does look very neat, I must admit. A straight line down through the building of WTC7. But I don't find it much more credible that explosives could form such a neat line. Particularly given the fact that WTC1 fell about seven hours before WTC7.
Is this the video you're referring to?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=79sJ1bMR6VQ
The main problem about that is the noise that is heard on this video.
Firefighters did report sounds of explosions, but nothing like that and there were no news cameras which picked up these sounds.
Given the nature of the collapse of building seven (looking exactly like controlled demolition)it would make sense to me that the building should have been brought down during or shortly after the collapse of the towers. In that situation no one would have payed much attention to that collapse. No one would have seen the collapse. The damage we´re talking about could be the result of a mistake.
Well, as with everything else on 9/11 the NWO conspirators chose to make things difficult for themselves.
Matt Taibbi gave a run-down of what Bush, Cheney and Rummy came up with in their conspiracy committee:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/11818067/the_low_post_the_hopeless_stupidity_of_911_conspiracies
Taibbi´s argument against the 9/11truth movement is not a very rational one. Why does the movement has to present an alternative theory (that has to be proven and need to answer ALL the resulting questions)? Does Taibbi find it rational to believe a bogus conspiracy theory (the official one) until someone comes up with a better one? The truth movement is best described as people who don´t believe the official conspiracy theory and see the need for a new investigation.
Taibbi´s argument against the 9/11truth movement is not a very rational one. Why does the movement has to present an alternative theory (that has to be proven and need to answer ALL the resulting questions)? Does Taibbi find it rational to believe a bogus conspiracy theory (the official one) until someone comes up with a better one? The truth movement is best described as people who don´t believe the official conspiracy theory and see the need for a new investigation.
I think asking questions is fine and I'm pretty sure that that's exactly what almost all the investigators in to 9/11 have been doing. There is a difference between that and "Just asking questions..." which is usually nothing of the sort. You cannot tell me that Richard Gage is "just asking questions" or David Ray Griffin is "just asking questions" or Steven Jones is "just asking questions". Why not? Because all of them have explicitly implicated the US government (or parts of) in this attack. And that is one of the more rational theories.
Do you have any specific questions that can be definitively answered that you'd like to make?
I'd welcome them and maybe even make a separate post to answer each of them if they are sufficiently worth it.
Does Taibbi find it rational to believe a bogus conspiracy theory (the official one) until someone comes up with a better one?
It would probably be best for you to first state what is bogus about what you call the "official story".
Well, let´s pick this one:
19 Hijackers were able to outfox the worlds biggest millitary power with boxcutters in an operation that lasted 1 hour and 50 minutes. For that time no fighter jets were able to get close to the airplanes. Over half and hour after the second tower was hit and all the world knew america was under attack the Terrorists were able to hit the Pentagon. I personally find that bogus to believe. There are of course much more examples...
Okay, that's an interesting question and I'm sure it demands a full answer.
I can only give you a partial one, off the top of my head.
We do know that the hijackers had switched off the transponders in the planes which would have made it harder for those fighter planes to track down and... and... and... what do you suppose those fighter planes should have done had they tracked down the planes?
If you can honestly tell me that shooting those planes down wouldn't have made you suspicious that the government was up to no good then we can continue. But should you realize, deep within yourself, that fighter planes shooting down a civilian aircraft wouldn't have eased your suspicions then your questions are only going to be endless and they will never have a satisfactory answer.
What do you think should have happened and what would you have recommended if you were in charge of those fighter planes?
For FOUR times no fighter jets were even able to track down those planes. If a plane is in trouble (loosing contact with ground control, going of course, turning of it´s transponder)and people on the ground don´t know what is happening up there fighter jets are going up. We are not talking about shooting down those hijacked planes since fighter jets on 9/11 weren´t even close enough to see those planes or able to offer help.
This might make a good argument if you can explain what those fighter planes were supposed to do. "Offer help"? Okay, what kind of help?
What do you recommend should have happened?
Can you give any precedents for this happening which will help make your point?
Don´t you find it disturbing that no jets were able to intercept those hijacked planes? Since you seem to agree that this matter demands a full answer I asume you´re convinced that we haven´t been given a full and thereby satisfying answer. That´s justification enough for a new investigation into the events of 9/11.
That would be all I like to argue for.
Don´t you find it disturbing that no jets were able to intercept those hijacked planes?
No, because you haven't given me a good idea of what those fighters could have or should have done. I have said that you (and I think I too) would have found it pretty disturbing if those planes had been shot down. You have said you aren't talking about shooting them down but "offering help" which I don't understand.
Since you seem to agree that this matter demands a full answer I asume you´re convinced that we haven´t been given a full and thereby satisfying answer.
I certainly haven't heard one from you.
That´s justification enough for a new investigation into the events of 9/11.
Which events? The inability of the fighters to "offer help" or to shoot down civilian airliners.
That would be all I like to argue for.
There's no point simply saying, "investigate 9/11" unless you specifically want a particular question answered.
Imagine four bank robberies on one day (or in two hours)and no police showing up. You won´t ask why the police wasn´t arresting or shooting down the criminals. You certainly will ask: Why was there no police at all? That´s what happened on 9/11.
It wasn't that no planes were scrambled that day. They were, but they didn't arrive on time.
I haven't read the 9/11 Commission Report, so you'll have to correct me if I am wrong, but according to that F-15s were scrambled from Otis Air Force Base in Falmouth, Massachusets. But by the time they were airborne the first plane had already crashed into the North Tower. It was not long after this that the second plane hit the South Tower.
Also, according to my source, if an air traffic controller suspected a hijacking it took a rather slow route through levels of seniority of the FAA and Department of Defense, confirming the hijacking before action could be taken. But my source is Popular Mechanics, so you may not consider it credible.
The question of "How did this happen?" was, in fact, one of the main tasks of the 9/11 Commission.
By the way, would it be possible to sign in as a name, even a pseudonym is fine, because I don't know if I am talking to one person or many. Thanks.
Oh, and did I mention that the hijackers had switched off the transponders on the airliners. This meant that when further planes were scrambled from Langley they were still trying to track down the first plane (As were ATC).
By the time a plane was seen closing in on the Pentagon, the fighter interceptors were in the wrong place.
You´re talking to one person. No, i don´t consider Popular Mechanics credible. Remember that we were given at least three different stories of why the planes we not intercepted. I´ll perhaps go into details when I got more time...
Anyway, nice conversation.
mmkretsch
Okay, thanks for that.
A plane without a transponder signal would surely be harder to track down, I guess. But does that mean every plane that lost it´s transponder signal is doomed without no way to getting help in an emergency situation - I guess not. That would mean an invading armada would only be noticed if it had the courtesy to leave it´s transponders on.
We were given three different stories of why the planes were not intercepted and I try to make it short (and still be accurate):
Version 1: In a hearing on sept.13th General Meyers stated that no planes were scrambled until after the Pentagon was hit.
Version 2: A week later the millitary published a timeline wich stated that the millitary was notified to late by the FAA - given part of the blame to the FAA.
But according to that timeline there would have been still enough time to prevent parts of the attack.
Version 3: The Commission Report portraied the FAA personal as incredibly incompetent, notifying the millitary muuuuch too late...so that the millitary looks blameless. The Report gave no explanation why the story had changed.
A plane without a transponder signal would surely be harder to track down, I guess. But does that mean every plane that lost it´s transponder signal is doomed without no way to getting help in an emergency situation - I guess not. That would mean an invading armada would only be noticed if it had the courtesy to leave it´s transponders on.
I don't expect invading waves of bombers or other planes do use transponders when in enemy airspace but most of them would still be observeed and tracked by radar. This is one of the reasons why the US military and others spend billions of dollars on stealth technology. In order to evade radar detection. It would probably defeat the object if stealth planes came in with their transponders squawking.
A plane that does lose its transponder is not, therefore doomed, because it can still be tracked on radar. The problem is that it is far less easy to identify and with the airspaces around New York and Washington D.C being so crowded it was, apparently, very difficult to detect which of the green or yellow blobs was a hijacked plane. (Again, I am mostly taking this from Popular Mechanics and a couple of Internet sites but they seem to have given a reasonable explanation which I have no reason to doubt.)
This further meant that when the first plane was known to be hijacked, ATC followed this one closely while sending the message up through the FAA and to the Department of Defense. From what I can understand the protocols had a few layers of seniority to go through and from what I can gather one or two of the subsequent hijackings weren't noticed until too late.
Yes, it seems the Commission report blamed the FAA for not reporting at least one of the hijackings too late - the plane that hit the Pentagon.
Yes, it looks like Myers was asked a question during the investigation which was ambiguous. It seems unclear, from what I can see, whether he was answering a question about when the order to scramble planes was given or when the order to shoot down planes was given. It's possible he was confused and also got the times wrong.
What I found very doubtful, however, is that the timeline given by the Commission for scrambling planes is false. If we do think it's false then it means the pilots who flew the planes (or rather didn't fly the planes) were lying. Not impossible, obviously, but which scenario seems more reasonable?
Version 1: In a hearing on sept.13th General Meyers stated that no planes were scrambled until after the Pentagon was hit.
Just to be clear, a shootdown order had been given after the Pentagon had been hit but fighters had been in the air prior to that.
It seems that the questions asked of Myers were unclear and he compounded that by giving unclear answers.
I think some researchers have picked through the testimony looking for inconsistencies and have declared "Conspiracy!" when it might be more reasonable to declare, "Cock-up!"
One strong reason to doubt the Commission´s story is that it is the third story. During the three years before we were told the second story (wich partly puts blame onto the millitary). As DRG pointed out in his lectures, you don´t believe a crimminal suspect if he is constantly changing his story.
With regards to General Meyers:
How could he be confused two days after the event? How could he have given unclear answers? He´s a millitary guy! Perhaps you might give him the benefit of the doubt but you surely wouldn´t promote such a guy.
I´ve enjoyed this conversation but I´m running out of time and english is only my second language (my first one is german). Looking back on this talk you seem like a honest guy to me. But allow me to point out that it is important to try to check the facts (if possible)- regardless if they are presented by Popular Mechanics, The 911 Commission, David Ray Griffin, Richard Gage or especially our governments. We need to look at both sides of the argument.
It´s better to be suspicious than to believe everything politicians and millitary guys tell us.
Greetings from Germany
mmkretsch
Well, David Ray Griffin has had his own problems with recall and he's been responsible for some notoriously sloppy research. The problem with some of his theories is that even though he's utterly mistaken they've spread like a disease across the Internet and are repeated even after he, himself, has distanced himself from his original claims.
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article17659.htm
As for Myers, I am sure that less hesitant and vague responses would have been preferable, but do make note that his answers are usually qualified with "I don't know for sure", "If memory serves...", "I'll have to go back and check..." etc...
http://www.911myths.com/html/myers_and_timeline_1.html
But allow me to point out that it is important to try to check the facts (if possible)- regardless if they are presented by Popular Mechanics, The 911 Commission, David Ray Griffin, Richard Gage or especially our governments. We need to look at both sides of the argument.
Yes, I completely agree, which is why - I think - have been doing exactly that. I have been assessing the claims of David Ray Griffin and Richard Gage (I have linked to Gage's own presentation in one of my posts so that anyone reading my blog can watch his presentation for themselves) who make a number of claims about the "official" or "government" story which I have then also tried to look into.
As I have said before there is absolutely no problem with asking questions and having suspicions about "official" or "government" stories and when I first started looking into this stuff I was far more inclined to be distrustful of the "official" story and thought that Griffin and others may have been on to something. The more I looked at their claims the more I realized what an abysmal methodology they used and how quickly their claims fell apart. So I have come to the conclusion that if we apply equal skepticism to both sides then it is the 9/11Truth Movement's claims (the majority of them anyway) which end up having to be discarded.
I´ve enjoyed this conversation but I´m running out of time and english is only my second language (my first one is german).
Your language skills do you credit. I had no idea you weren't a native English speaker.
Thanks for reading my blog. Please come back and visit any time.
Auf Wiedersehen,
angrysoba
Post a Comment