9/11 Blueprint for Truth - Compelling Presentation
tags:
Stumble ThisThe most compelling presentation proving the 9/11 Conspiracy – with architect Richard Gage, founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth.
X Greetings! You are not currently logged in, but please don't let that stop you from voting up any videos you like. :)
|
| |||||||||||||||
Richard Gage,architect,911 truth,scientific,objective,presentation 9/11 Blueprint for Truth - Compelling Presentation
Comments  playlists with this video 9/11 by Duckman33
who voted for this video EndAll
- UsesProzac
- schmawy
- eric3579
- jdbates
- MikesHL13
- Lann
- Deano
- NordlichReiter
- Duncan
- Drax
- geo321
- rougy
- gwiz665
- enoch
- CaveBear
- Duckman33
- Enzoblue
- ant
- blankfist
- majortom3000
- budzos
- SpeveO
- heathen
- crotchflame
- doomsayer
- alizarin
- MilkmanDan
- Ryjkyj
- honkeytonk73
- COriolanus
- cracanata
- shuac
- MrConrads
- dirtythirtyix
- manfromx
- Rotty
- NobleOne
who voted against this video TheSofaKing
who has this post bookmarked MrConrads
- NobleOne
9/11 Blueprint For Truth - Compelling Presentation Related Videos
| Watch this Video NextFriends O' the Sift Top New Videos by Vote                 Subscribe Top 15 Sifters of All Time Top 15 Sifters of the Past Week 13. dan00108
(171 votes) Newest Appreciated Comments      | ||||||||||||||
first of all, I'm Canadian. secondly - you don't have to be American to question the official story
you should be more motivated, however, being American.
this is less conspiracy theory, more fact-checking and objective analysis.
the conspiracy theory starts after the conclusion can be made that it was a controlled demolition
Every single aspect of the "demolition theory" has been dismissed and proven wrong by many engineers and architects several times over with far more compelling and reasoned proof than this retarded bullshit. You you somehow still believe that it was a conspiracy involving a secret controlled demolition then please, for the good of humanity, kill yourself.
Oh, well hell. If you say so then it MUST be true! I'm off to kill myself now.
So, smart guy. Lets see some of this "far more compelling proof" you speak of then.
The biggest flaw in his theory (and probably all of these theories) is the audio from that day. If you listen to any of those building implosions that he used as examples, there are a good number of detonations just before the actual collapse. If you listen to the audio from the WTC collapses (as well as Bldg 7), there are no such sounds before the building starts to give way. All the noise and "sounds of explosions" comes after the building starts collapsing on itself. If they had wired "every other floor" like he puts forward, you would have heard dozens and dozens of explosions just before the collapses.
1) Quit talking about the "myth" and "official story." You should be proposing this as a hypothesis as an alternative to the standard hypothesis. Presenting the scientific method as a way to tell the truth from lies is a perfect example of this where they should have simply described it as a method for determining the truth. You're giving away an emotional conviction toward the conclusion of the study.
2) Quit mentioning that no building has collapsed due to fire before. It's irrelevant.
3) Almost all of the eyewitness accounts should be ignored - especially given the chaotic nature of the events that day and especially people claiming to have heard explosions.
4) The fact that the towers fell mostly on their own footprint is exactly what you'd expect from a building collapsing under the weight of the topmost floors. There's simply no source of momentum to force the tower to fall sideways. Building 7 is more interesting though and the video spent more time on this.
6) Too much of the analysis is based on small samples and having been done by this Dr. Jones alone. It seems as though there could be several other explanations for the thermite evidence Jones found that isn't presented. I'm not even saying they're better explanations, but I feel pretty certain someone has presented other explanations and this guy doesn't present them.
...Anyway, I'm getting bored. Basically, by the way this is presented I can't believe this guy, or any others I've seen, are being objective and so I can't shake the feeling that there's lots of data that isn't being presented here. I spend a lot of time listening to technical talks and you can quickly tell the difference between someone presenting scientific results and someone trying to sell you something.
Allot of people in power had a heck of allot to gain from 911 at that particular time but that doesn't mean they managed to demolish landmarks in the middle of NYC in broad daylight and not get caught. Nixon couldn't even break into a DC hotel at night without getting caught.
I would argue its not irilivent
Granted other buildings didn't have plans fly into them and they were also different buildings. However it would be foolish to ignore the fact that no other steel building has fallen down from fire as there are still aspects of the buildings that are similar evan more so with bulding 7. ( I would be prepared to ignore them if infarct it was the case that other buildings r infact not analogous to building 7 I don't know enough to make an informed desisoin on the issue)
So yes I would not make a big point of no other steal buildings falling down as its only partiality relivent and could not be used as an argument in itself , it dose however help with determining a lose grounding and basses for what sort of temperatures and fire damage general steal structures can withstand.
(and as i said the other buildings might in reality be compleatly different structures so it could be 100% irelivent as you say )
and yeah crotch flame your totally right about the eyewitness accounts , this is the thing that annoys me the most you simply cannot trust what people say from an event , even more so when its something like this where they will be in shock and the fact that so much of what eye witness have said has been taken out of context. having said that I don't think you should ignore eye witnesses outright and many of the comments talking about audible explosions should still be considered however as I say be treated as a very low form of evidence and likely to be wrong.
IT is important to maintain proper application of scientific method and as you say I don't think this is that well written but then again these people are structural enganears not scientists and they do make manny valid points/ points of interest . At a minimum this is far more "scientific" than 99% of the other talks and videos on 9.11 but it could defiantly be allot better.
it would be vastly more constructive attacking the current wars directly or attacking current actions of bush and oabama administration as these can be proven very eseaily with scientific verifiable evidence ( more importantly for political issues scientific verifiable evidence the public will go along with) .
The amount of time some of these people have investead in 911 truth maby they could have gotten into goverment and had mroe of an impact ? maby not ,
Every single aspect of the "demolition theory" has been dismissed and proven wrong by many engineers and architects several times over with far more compelling and reasoned proof than this retarded bullshit. You you somehow still believe that it was a conspiracy involving a secret controlled demolition then please, for the good of humanity, kill yourself.
Proven wrong is fine -- good even. Dismissed isn't. Anytime questions like these are brought up, it seems that they are dismissed and mocked.
I'm not convinced that these were controlled demolitions, but I think that there are enough strange aspects and gaps in the official story that the people that ask questions in a rational way like in this video should be faced and answered instead of dismissed.
The real reason for my comment is that I'd like to see a video like this done professionally without a lot of whiny finger pointing at the established explanation. It makes it hard to believe you're getting an unbiased account of the facts. If they started the video with a presentation of the accepted explanation in a way that demonstrated their understanding of it and from there presented evidence for a different conclusion then I'd be more likely to take it seriously. They must show that they can see the value in the standard explanation but believe the alternative better accounts for the facts; otherwise they get mired in conspiratorial thinking relying on hidden evidence which can be difficult to take seriously. As it is, I'm only left with a vague feeling that there may be things I should research on my own to make a conclusion but that I can't take anything from this video without a grain of salt.
Sorry for the rant.
...I can't imagine how a project of this size could be pulled off without being leaked.
There were 130,000 people involved in the secret Manhattan Project in the 1940's.
These are engineers and architects who witness compelling evidence of one thing, and are told something utterly different. Those types of people tend to be very emotionally invested in their areas of expertise. I can understand their fervor...especially considering the events occurring in the wake of 9/11.
I don't see any outlandish claims being made....definitely worth investigation.