+- Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora)
+-- Forum: Deep Politics Forum (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-1.html)
+--- Forum: 911 (https://deeppoliticsforum.com/fora/forum-6.html)
+--- Thread: Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez Questions Richard Gage at AE911Truth Presentation on 4/12/2011 (/thread-6248.html)
Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez Questions Richard Gage at AE911Truth Presentation on 4/12/2011 - Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez - 16-04-2011
Peter Lemkin Wrote:Hey Abraham, I see you are a fan of Terrance McK too. I was a friend of his....and miss his wordweaving presence. In his last few years, unbeknownst to most of his fans he was talking about Deep Politics. I had several converstations with him about JFK assassination and other such things.... Think of his way of handling those who differed with him or his his idea[ls]. As far as Gage goes, at one time he believed the official version...he has come a long way....and he may go futher. He has his own veiws on what will work with most people and even the sheeple - and what will not. You and I may differ....but we just all need to keep plugging away at it. In our own ways...working together when we can and agreeing to disagree when we can not. Jack and I have seen what internal fights within a research community has done in the past and I know we don't want to see it waste time and energy [and damage friendships] in the present. There are REAL bad people out there who are trying to disrupt the search for truth. Best aim your sights at them...but Gage is not among them, IMHO. Peace.:mexican:
Despite the things we can agree on, I completely disagree with you regarding Gage.
If Gage was searching for the truth, then he would not be trying to deceive people by claiming to present the best "scientific forensic evidence", only to completely ignore the large sum of scientific forensic evidence that thermite does not explain. If a cancer researcher only presented the evidence that supported his hypothesis while completely ignoring the evidence that countered his hypothesis, he would be ridiculed, criticized, and most likely fired from whatever institution he represented for presenting such an unscientific and biased fraction of the total sum of important physical evidence that demands consideration.
If Gage was searching for the truth, he would not silently ban his donating members for trying to help AE911Truth by sending him one email to share the large sum of important physical evidence that Gage does not talk about. Gage's actions are not in the spirit of "unity", and his actions are not in the spirit of scientific investigation of all the important physical evidence from 9/11. He even admits that he has not studied all of the scientific forensic evidence from 9/11, such as the NYC seismographic data, and he has also admitted that there is important physical evidence out there that he chooses not to talk about because thermite does not explain it (see Part 2 of my videos above when I ask him about the 1,400+ mangled, warped, and toasted cars, and the NYC seismographic data).
If Gage was searching for the truth, he would not lie to his audience and say "we censored his profile because Abraham had posted confusing information there", because the truth is that I did not post any such information in my profile; rather, i sent him one private email, asking him if he was aware of the large sum of important physical evidence that I had never seen him discuss before.
If Gage was searching for the truth, he would not completely ignore the large sum of empirical evidence that thermite and explosives do not explain. Instead, he would address this evidence and modify his theory accordingly, so that his views are as scientific, as accurate, and as consistent with all of the important physical evidence from 9/11 as possible. Instead, Gage continues to promote non-scientific views, he continues to share only the small fraction of evidence that he wants people to see while not mentioning the large sum of empirical evidence that MUST be explained from 9/11, and he continues to deceptively act like he is a scientific person who cares about the truth despite his actions showing that he is just the opposite. This is deceptive, dishonest, and unscientific at best.
I could go on and on and on... but I would be wasting my time. Gage is obviously an intelligent person, so we truly must ask ourselves, how can someone this intelligent behave so unscientifically and unprofessionally? Is he really just that 'dumb', or is he doing this on purpose (perhaps because a boss requires him too)? I care not to speculate about the answer to such a question, because either way, Mr. Gage is misleading the 9/11 "Truth" Movement with his unscientific, unprofessional, and subtly dishonest behavior (in my humble opinion).
I absolutely and respectfully disagree with you, because I think it is more-than-obvious that Richard Gage, Steven Jones, Alex Jones, Greg Jenkins, Richard Hoagland, Jim Fetzer, and others, are the second layer of the 9/11 cover up.
Despite the fact that I strongly disagree with you, I hope you have a good weekend anyway.
Sincerely,
-Abe
Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez Questions Richard Gage at AE911Truth Presentation on 4/12/2011 - Kyle Burnett - 18-04-2011
Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez Wrote:If Gage was searching for the truth, then he would not be trying to deceive people by claiming to present the best "scientific forensic evidence", only to completely ignore the large sum of scientific forensic evidence that thermite does not explain.Can you present list of this evidence you refer too? I heard your argument about the seismic data, but I wouldn't expect the destruction of the towers to shake the ground as much as a traditional controlled demolition, as the former blasted apart from near the top down while in the latter case the bottom is generally blasted out and then the top part of the building crushes itself on the ground. As for the crushed cars, I'd be shocked if cars weren't crushed with all those tons of rubble falling all over the place, though I've seen some which were burnt in a way I've yet to comprehend. However, other than that I've yet to see anything in the destruction of the towers that can't be explained by well timed incendiaries and explosives, and the nanothermite along with residue from such reactions in the dust is hard proof that it played some part in bringing the towers down. So, what exactly is this "large sum of scientific forensic evidence" which you are suggesting I'm missing?
Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez Questions Richard Gage at AE911Truth Presentation on 4/12/2011 - Jack White - 18-04-2011
Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez Wrote:Peter Lemkin Wrote:Hey Abraham, I see you are a fan of Terrance McK too. I was a friend of his....and miss his wordweaving presence. In his last few years, unbeknownst to most of his fans he was talking about Deep Politics. I had several converstations with him about JFK assassination and other such things.... Think of his way of handling those who differed with him or his his idea[ls]. As far as Gage goes, at one time he believed the official version...he has come a long way....and he may go futher. He has his own veiws on what will work with most people and even the sheeple - and what will not. You and I may differ....but we just all need to keep plugging away at it. In our own ways...working together when we can and agreeing to disagree when we can not. Jack and I have seen what internal fights within a research community has done in the past and I know we don't want to see it waste time and energy [and damage friendships] in the present. There are REAL bad people out there who are trying to disrupt the search for truth. Best aim your sights at them...but Gage is not among them, IMHO. Peace.:mexican:
Despite the things we can agree on, I completely disagree with you regarding Gage.
If Gage was searching for the truth, then he would not be trying to deceive people by claiming to present the best "scientific forensic evidence", only to completely ignore the large sum of scientific forensic evidence that thermite does not explain. If a cancer researcher only presented the evidence that supported his hypothesis while completely ignoring the evidence that countered his hypothesis, he would be ridiculed, criticized, and most likely fired from whatever institution he represented for presenting such an unscientific and biased fraction of the total sum of important physical evidence that demands consideration.
If Gage was searching for the truth, he would not silently ban his donating members for trying to help AE911Truth by sending him one email to share the large sum of important physical evidence that Gage does not talk about. Gage's actions are not in the spirit of "unity", and his actions are not in the spirit of scientific investigation of all the important physical evidence from 9/11. He even admits that he has not studied all of the scientific forensic evidence from 9/11, such as the NYC seismographic data, and he has also admitted that there is important physical evidence out there that he chooses not to talk about because thermite does not explain it (see Part 2 of my videos above when I ask him about the 1,400+ mangled, warped, and toasted cars, and the NYC seismographic data).
If Gage was searching for the truth, he would not lie to his audience and say "we censored his profile because Abraham had posted confusing information there", because the truth is that I did not post any such information in my profile; rather, i sent him one private email, asking him if he was aware of the large sum of important physical evidence that I had never seen him discuss before.
If Gage was searching for the truth, he would not completely ignore the large sum of empirical evidence that thermite and explosives do not explain. Instead, he would address this evidence and modify his theory accordingly, so that his views are as scientific, as accurate, and as consistent with all of the important physical evidence from 9/11 as possible. Instead, Gage continues to promote non-scientific views, he continues to share only the small fraction of evidence that he wants people to see while not mentioning the large sum of empirical evidence that MUST be explained from 9/11, and he continues to deceptively act like he is a scientific person who cares about the truth despite his actions showing that he is just the opposite. This is deceptive, dishonest, and unscientific at best.
I could go on and on and on... but I would be wasting my time. Gage is obviously an intelligent person, so we truly must ask ourselves, how can someone this intelligent behave so unscientifically and unprofessionally? Is he really just that 'dumb', or is he doing this on purpose (perhaps because a boss requires him too)? I care not to speculate about the answer to such a question, because either way, Mr. Gage is misleading the 9/11 "Truth" Movement with his unscientific, unprofessional, and subtly dishonest behavior (in my humble opinion).
I absolutely and respectfully disagree with you, because I think it is more-than-obvious that Richard Gage, Steven Jones, Alex Jones, Greg Jenkins, Richard Hoagland, Jim Fetzer, and others, are the second layer of the 9/11 cover up.
Despite the fact that I strongly disagree with you, I hope you have a good weekend anyway.
Sincerely,
-Abe
Abe needs to study the subjunctive case.
Jack
Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez Questions Richard Gage at AE911Truth Presentation on 4/12/2011 - Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez - 18-04-2011
Kyle, here ya go:
For a partial, very brief summary of some of this important physical evidence, please see my '9/11 Challenge: Explain the Evidence' article at this link (second article down from the top): http://pookzta.blogspot.com
For a complete, extensive list and discussion of all the important physical evidence Dr. Wood has discovered, please read her book, 'Where Did The Towers Go?', which you can purchase here: http://wheredidthetowersgo.com (of course, you can also view the evidence she has gathered at http://drjudywood.com for no cost at all, but the information is somewhat scattered and harder to follow, so for those who prefer to walk through the information step by step in a more 'simplified', scientific textbook format, her new scientific textbook is far superior to her website, in my opinion).
Hope that helps
See ya,
-Abe
Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez Questions Richard Gage at AE911Truth Presentation on 4/12/2011 - Kyle Burnett - 21-04-2011
Abe, sorry about the late reply, I read your blog post shortly after you linked it but then got carried away with other things and didn't have a chance to get back here until now. Anyway, before adressing the other arguments in your list, I'm hopping you might respond to my point in the previous post about how buildings blasted apart from near the top down and loose rubble hitting the ground wouldn't shake the ground as much as traditional controlled demolitions where the explosives are near the bottom and the upper portion of the building comes down whole to crush itself on the ground?
Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez Questions Richard Gage at AE911Truth Presentation on 4/12/2011 - Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez - 22-04-2011
Kyle,
I agree that a building hitting the ground in chunks as opposed to one large mass could result in smaller spikes on a seismograph, but this would also be reflected by a longer seismic wave since the pieces would not all hit the ground at the same time (if they did, it would be similar to the whole building hitting the ground at once).
The seismic data is one minor piece of thousands, so please study all the evidence you can and make up your own mind. There are hundreds of pieces of data that Richard Gage does not discuss, which is very bothersome because these hundreds of pieces of data cannot be explained by thermite or explosives of any kind.
I am glad you are looking into more into this topic.
Best wishes,
-Abe
Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez Questions Richard Gage at AE911Truth Presentation on 4/12/2011 - Peter Lemkin - 22-04-2011
Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez Wrote:Peter Lemkin Wrote:Hey Abraham, I see you are a fan of Terrance McK too. I was a friend of his....and miss his wordweaving presence. In his last few years, unbeknownst to most of his fans he was talking about Deep Politics. I had several converstations with him about JFK assassination and other such things.... Think of his way of handling those who differed with him or his his idea[ls]. As far as Gage goes, at one time he believed the official version...he has come a long way....and he may go futher. He has his own veiws on what will work with most people and even the sheeple - and what will not. You and I may differ....but we just all need to keep plugging away at it. In our own ways...working together when we can and agreeing to disagree when we can not. Jack and I have seen what internal fights within a research community has done in the past and I know we don't want to see it waste time and energy [and damage friendships] in the present. There are REAL bad people out there who are trying to disrupt the search for truth. Best aim your sights at them...but Gage is not among them, IMHO. Peace.:mexican:
Despite the things we can agree on, I completely disagree with you regarding Gage.
If Gage was searching for the truth, then he would not be trying to deceive people by claiming to present the best "scientific forensic evidence", only to completely ignore the large sum of scientific forensic evidence that thermite does not explain. If a cancer researcher only presented the evidence that supported his hypothesis while completely ignoring the evidence that countered his hypothesis, he would be ridiculed, criticized, and most likely fired from whatever institution he represented for presenting such an unscientific and biased fraction of the total sum of important physical evidence that demands consideration.
If Gage was searching for the truth, he would not silently ban his donating members for trying to help AE911Truth by sending him one email to share the large sum of important physical evidence that Gage does not talk about. Gage's actions are not in the spirit of "unity", and his actions are not in the spirit of scientific investigation of all the important physical evidence from 9/11. He even admits that he has not studied all of the scientific forensic evidence from 9/11, such as the NYC seismographic data, and he has also admitted that there is important physical evidence out there that he chooses not to talk about because thermite does not explain it (see Part 2 of my videos above when I ask him about the 1,400+ mangled, warped, and toasted cars, and the NYC seismographic data).
If Gage was searching for the truth, he would not lie to his audience and say "we censored his profile because Abraham had posted confusing information there", because the truth is that I did not post any such information in my profile; rather, i sent him one private email, asking him if he was aware of the large sum of important physical evidence that I had never seen him discuss before.
If Gage was searching for the truth, he would not completely ignore the large sum of empirical evidence that thermite and explosives do not explain. Instead, he would address this evidence and modify his theory accordingly, so that his views are as scientific, as accurate, and as consistent with all of the important physical evidence from 9/11 as possible. Instead, Gage continues to promote non-scientific views, he continues to share only the small fraction of evidence that he wants people to see while not mentioning the large sum of empirical evidence that MUST be explained from 9/11, and he continues to deceptively act like he is a scientific person who cares about the truth despite his actions showing that he is just the opposite. This is deceptive, dishonest, and unscientific at best.
I could go on and on and on... but I would be wasting my time. Gage is obviously an intelligent person, so we truly must ask ourselves, how can someone this intelligent behave so unscientifically and unprofessionally? Is he really just that 'dumb', or is he doing this on purpose (perhaps because a boss requires him too)? I care not to speculate about the answer to such a question, because either way, Mr. Gage is misleading the 9/11 "Truth" Movement with his unscientific, unprofessional, and subtly dishonest behavior (in my humble opinion).
I absolutely and respectfully disagree with you, because I think it is more-than-obvious that Richard Gage, Steven Jones, Alex Jones, Greg Jenkins, Richard Hoagland, Jim Fetzer, and others, are the second layer of the 9/11 cover up.
Despite the fact that I strongly disagree with you, I hope you have a good weekend anyway.
Sincerely,
-Abe
You are, as I have said before, causing more harm than good. This is the pattern I and Jack White and many others have seen over and over. If you REALLY are for solving the case and not causing internal dissension you'll take what each can offer in a positive vein, try to educate them further, and leave them alone [not attack them; try to denigrate them] for what they [in your mind] don't grasp. Deviousness like this only lets the other side win. Which side are you on? Not everyone sees the world and this case as clearly as you do (sic), obviously. But pity them in your superior insight; don't work for the other side - without realizing it - or realizing it.
Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez Questions Richard Gage at AE911Truth Presentation on 4/12/2011 - Kyle Burnett - 22-04-2011
Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez Wrote:I agree that a building hitting the ground in chunks as opposed to one large mass could result in smaller spikes on a seismograph, but this would also be reflected by a longer seismic wave since the pieces would not all hit the ground at the same time (if they did, it would be similar to the whole building hitting the ground at once).No longer than it takes for those pieces to hit the ground though, eh? Best I can tell, the seismic spikes match the time it too for the towers to come down as recorded by the videos.
Any, I've reviewed what you've presented, but I've yet to see anything which leads me to believe that it took more than incendiaries and explosives to bring down the towers. Your arguments to the contrary seem based soly on misinterpretations of data, your expectation that explosive demolition should produce comparable seismic data regardless of if it is done from near the top down or in the typical bottom up manor because that is the one you elaborated on to Gage in your video.
For another example along similar lines from your blog post, you suggest the height of the rubble pile being notably less than that of a traditional controlled demolition is inconsistent with explosive demotion in general. However, when the rubble pile is blasted all over and well beyond the footprint of the WTC complex rather than traditional controlled demolitions where the buildings are brought down barely exceeding their own footprint (as was the case with WTC 7), of course the much wider rubble pile is going to far shorter. It's not a matter of hight alone, but a matter of volume, and in that regard I don't see anything to support the notion that the towers were vaporized. Furthermore, in the photos and videos you presented as steel beams being vaporized I'm not seeing any notable reduction in their size, and rather it looks to me like they simply have something attached to them producing an intense chemical reaction; likely nanothermite based demolition devices.
Then there's things like your claims of round holes in windows while the collection of images you link to the holes all look very jagged, magnetosphere fluctuations which look reasonably similar to many other days throughout the year, a hurricane that never got anywhere close to the coastline. Perhaps you could you elaborate on one of these or any of the other points in your blog which you feel best makes your case, but at this point I'm not seeing a coherent argument from you at all, and get the impression that it is you who needs too look into this matter more.
Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez Questions Richard Gage at AE911Truth Presentation on 4/12/2011 - Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez - 25-04-2011
Kyle,
As much as I appreciate your opinion, your unscientific explanations as to why you feel a few pieces of important evidence are not significant and your willingness to judge me while you simultaneously ignore the rest of the large sum of easily verifiable important physical evidence Dr. Judy Wood has gathered, is very concerning to me.
I do not have time to waste on conversations like this one, for I am not here to convince you of anything and my upcoming USMLE Step 1 exam is much more important. If you don't find it concerning that Richard Gage, Steven Jones, Alex Jones, and others are not discussing a large sum of important physical evidence that thermite and explosives do not explain, then that is your opinion and I accept that. I encourage you to continue re-searching this topic extensively, and to make sure your opinions are accurate, scientific, and consistent with all of the available physical evidence from 9/11. I respectfully disagree with you, and before I go I would like to remind the people of this forum why I support Dr. Judy Wood:
To this day, the only researcher who has put forth a scientific conclusion which explains all the easily verifiable physical evidence, is Dr. Judy Wood, Ph.D (Materials Science Engineering). If anyone can explain the physical evidence better than Dr. Judy Wood has, please let me know, for I am more than willing to consider an alternative scientific explanation if it can successfully account for all the evidence.
As a scientist and medical student, I must rely on verifiable evidence to formulate my opinions. For this reason, I cannot accept the claim that jetfuel and/or explosives are what caused the overwhelming amount of anomalous damage on 9/11, because the evidence does not support those claims. Explosives and/or jetfuel do not explain the physical evidence, but Dr. Judy Wood does, and that is why I support her. She is fighting for all of us.
Sincerely,
-Abe
[EDIT: was proof-reading post above and noticed that I had forgotten to remove the word 'actually']
Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez Questions Richard Gage at AE911Truth Presentation on 4/12/2011 - Kyle Burnett - 26-04-2011
Abraham Hafiz Rodriguez Wrote:As much as I appreciate your opinion, your unscientific explanations...Oh really, you think it's scientific to compare the height of the rubble pile to traditional controlled demolitions rather than the volume, do you? Can you post any pictures of windows to support your claims of round holes, or elaborate on any of the points you claim as evidence to support Wood's conclusion? I get the impression you don't even believe the the argument you are backing, or else why did you get so defensive when Gage mentioned DEW in response to you beating around that bush?