• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

9/11 - Richard Gage on Irish TV

BM
So homework for you if you choose.
wtc7lies
WTC Not A Demolition - 911myths

Gage alters sound
JREF Forum - View Single Post - Richard Gage to debate CD on Toronto radio show

http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf page 72 altered photo on molten metal.

ryanmackey - 911guide
This
paper refutes Dr. Griffin’s major claims, supporting with evidence that the aircraft
impacts were expected to significantly damage the structures, that the resulting fires were
of both sufficient temperature and duration to cause structural collapse, that a progressive
collapse resulting in total destruction of the Towers was the likely result, and that the
“controlled demolition” hypothesis is speculative and unsupported by any evidence.

BM we will continue to disagree. I can respect your stance and opinion. What I think is you do not look at Gage and Jones with the same energy as do the govt or those that support the govt findings. I look at your sources with skepitism as you do mine. So the 911 issue will go on.
 
I will reply later to your points. BM I will ask now again why you always deflect back to the govt instead of staying on topic?
This thread is about Gage and Controlled Demolition. You have not shown that he is correct and always go back to say the govt. was wrong. as far as your points on post 149 are your opinion. I have posted on other threads where Jones fabricated photos, etc.
Dream on.

Well, like it or not, Gage is not the high priest of 9-11 truth.

And you may have shown that Jones had used faked photos in a presentation... now, did you show that he either created the fakes or had been KNOWINGLY using those fakes? I can forgive someone for making a mistake if he owns up to it, because that's a different situation than KNOWINGLY using or creating a fake photo to make a point.

I accept that there's a lot of disinformation on the subject, but strictly speaking to the subject :

- Gage is merely pointing out that the buildings collapsed in a way that was consistent with a controlled demolition, the point being that a controlled demolition is a different process than a collapse due to fires.

- Jones paper, anyone who has actually obtained a sample has been able to confirm the qualities of the substance found.

- Finally, what was found does not occur naturally, and was powdered and comprised at a scale that would require very highly precise instruments, example; NASA uses this technology for rocket separation.
 
BM
So homework for you if you choose.
wtc7lies
WTC Not A Demolition - 911myths

Absolute garbage website, I can't believe you'd even use that as a source. You want a lesson in how to create fallacies, read that... actually both of those are terrible.


Fail... all 3 links... ultimate strawman attempt here.

http://www.911myths.com/WTC7_Lies.pdf page 72 altered photo on molten metal.

REALLY??? I made it through 10 pages of that, and I don't think I saw a single factual statement beyond possibly the title. That might as well be a propaganda novel.

ryanmackey - 911guide
This
paper refutes Dr. Griffin’s major claims, supporting with evidence that the aircraft
impacts were expected to significantly damage the structures, that the resulting fires were
of both sufficient temperature and duration to cause structural collapse, that a progressive
collapse resulting in total destruction of the Towers was the likely result, and that the
“controlled demolition” hypothesis is speculative and unsupported by any evidence.

Griffon is ALSO NOT a master of the truth. Just because these people are more vocal than others does not mean that they are speaking for everyone.

Wasn't it you telling me not to get distracted from Gage like 1 post ago?

BM we will continue to disagree. I can respect your stance and opinion. What I think is you do not look at Gage and Jones with the same energy as do the govt or those that support the govt findings. I look at your sources with skepitism as you do mine. So the 911 issue will go on.[/QUOTE]
 
Well said... it's so simple. People tend to not realize the realities of political pressure...

And what "political pressure" would that be for two retired Swiss professors then ???

Do you just make this crud up or do you really think the US has so much power and influence they can direct foreign nationals from a NEUTRAL country what to think or say ???

for example, at a university, I went to look at the requirements for various courses (engineering among them), and in the structural engineering they went so deep as to only accept business referred candidates.

Oh! so those engineers so educated by business referral couldn't work for any other firms then ... they are tied in blood to those that referred them !!!

(As an aside is the chance of getting above purely blue collar ever a possibility for you ... did you have the necessary levels of education or qualification or aptitude for such, is that why you were looking at degree courses ???)

That means they are only looking for "company (wo)men", and these are the people that will be more apt to bend to political winds in order to maintain their positions.

What a load of baloney !!!

NOTHING stops people from moving jobs, moving countries, moving allegiances ... part of my training and education was paid for by the Royal Air Force, yet NOTHING stopped me from working wherever I damm well chose after I left ... I took those qualifications with me and worked both for the NHS and in my own private practise ... I owed NOTHING to those that taught me, moneterily or in any political fashion ... I could say as I pleased about anything.

Claiming that this worlds professionals are too cowardly or selfish to speak out is just ignorant and idiotic ... and so removed from reality as to indicate some break with normality !!!

It takes balls to go out on a limb and declare that, regardless of any potential negative impacts, that you are stating your position that goes against the "mainstream".

So pat yourself on the back ... you da man !!!

Now, I could show you examples of how people TEND to not want to shake the boat all day for nearly a week... it's a fact that MOST PEOPLE avoid conflicts if they can be avoided, generally speaking.

So, that's why people turn up in huge numbers at protests, write letters to Parliament, demand answers from officialdom, rattle cages, sue governments everyday of the year ... whoda thunk it ... :roll::roll::roll:

http://www.hermes-press.com/london2.jpg

http://www.topia.net/Images/DC092405.gif

Nobody, it seems, is prepared to take a stand ... as they wish to avoid conflict and not shake the boat ... well, that goes a long way to explain all those MASSIVE anti-war protests and suchlike then !!!

Nobody is prepared to stand up and protest for something as small as stopping a village school from closing either then I take it ...

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images...39273977032/Children-from-Wyndford-pr-001.jpg

Nobody was prepared to stand up and protest against cuts to school dinner services ...

" A coalition of senior doctors and nurses have written to the education secretary, Michael Gove, expressing "deep concern" at his decision to axe plans for free school meals for half a million primary school children from low-income families.

The Royal College of Nursing, Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health and Royal College of Physicians are the latest groups to join the backlash against the controversial move, saying the scheme would have lifted 50,000 young people out of poverty and cut education and health inequalities by giving them more nutritious lunches
."

Free school meals: Health professionals join the backlash over cuts | Education | The Guardian

Nobody ... "except" truthers it seems ...are brave enough to shake boats ...

"More than 250,000 people have attended a march and rally in central London against public spending cuts"

BBC News - Anti-cuts march: Tens of thousands at London protest

"About 3,000 journalists who are members of the National Union of Journalists took part in the one-day strike, which caused some disruption to programming."

"The strike is the second in less than a year at the broadcaster. About 4,100 BBC journalists went on a 48-hour strike last November to protest planned cuts to pensions"

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/16/b...rnalists-in-one-day-strike-over-job-cuts.html

"In spite of the fact that 8 December is a public holiday in Malta, with a number of towns and villages celebrating religious feasts, a crowd of more than 300 animal lovers gathered to protest against a travelling circus with animals which opened its doors to the public on the same day."

International Animal Rescue - News - Circus protest draws crowds in Malta

Seems even circus animals can get more people to turn up in protest at their treatment than any truther group seems to ... there must be a reason for that ???

Bet you don't realise the reason is there aren't enough people stupid enough to fall for truther guff ... that most people see it for the lunacy it is !!!

I'll put it a different way, NOT as a comparison, but as an illustration of what this type of declaration CAN mean.
- How many of those that signed the declaration of independence survived long enough to see their fulfilled dream of an independent country?? and how many did NOT?

As for PNAC's RAD document, THE ONLY WAY that you can read that as a "legitimate" planning document (as opposed to a "conspiratorial" document) is if you do not take in the entire context of the document AND those involved in the authoring of the document.

It CANNOT be done, because the context is CLEAR... BUT that still leaves few options :
1 - These people were prophets that had "visioned" the attacks of 9-11 and planned for an "appropriate" response that suits their personal agendas.
2 - These people COINCIDENTALLY put as the KEY catalyst to their objectives, what was described in AT LEAST 6 cities major newspapers as the front page headline. (specifically "New Pearl Harbor"... honestly, google search the news headlines for that day... there should still be at least a few of them still online)
3 - They KNEW what was going to happen, it was "inevitable" and so planned around this "inevitability", OR
4 - They were involved, having working knowledge of the intricacies and even delegated tasks to people in key positions in order for 9-11 to occur as it did... AND being friends with the CEO's of the media giants, had prepared a headline for an "event" that would happen.

Oh, and "plausible deniability" is another great tool of the politician.

Cheers, keep it up.

Thems all just wurds up there, meaningless wurds that will remain meaningless in 10 years time ... 50 years time ... 1000 years time ... it is just so much empty rhetoric !!!
 
BM
Garbage sites just like ones you link to to show your point. At least they take you to reasonalble papers rather than just opinions.
just a reminder this thread was on Gage not nist..
 
And what "political pressure" would that be for two retired Swiss professors then ???

Do you just make this crud up or do you really think the US has so much power and influence they can direct foreign nationals from a NEUTRAL country what to think or say ???

You think political pressures are all due to the US government? If not thanks for conceding the strawman.

It's not as simple as just the government... Even in Europe people still get labelled as those endearing terms like "crazy", "kooky", etc... You know this is true, you use this type of ad hom approach to most of your arguments, not many people are willing to endure a potential shunning... And that does have potential to impact a persons reputation.

Oh! so those engineers so educated by business referral couldn't work for any other firms then ... they are tied in blood to those that referred them !!!

That's not even what I was talking about... But you probably intentionally missed the point.

(As an aside is the chance of getting above purely blue collar ever a possibility for you ... did you have the necessary levels of education or qualification or aptitude for such, is that why you were looking at degree courses ???)

Not that it's relevant, but I installed and maintained the computer server and systems for a school and did work for that school division for two years after I graduated as a computer systems analyst. I CHOSE to give up that life, not because of a lack of intelligence either.

Oh, and I graduated before standardized testing was started.

What a load of baloney !!!

NOTHING stops people from moving jobs, moving countries, moving allegiances ... part of my training and education was paid for by the Royal Air Force, yet NOTHING stopped me from working wherever I damm well chose after I left ... I took those qualifications with me and worked both for the NHS and in my own private practise ... I owed NOTHING to those that taught me, moneterily or in any political fashion ... I could say as I pleased about anything.

Claiming that this worlds professionals are too cowardly or selfish to speak out is just ignorant and idiotic ... and so removed from reality as to indicate some break with normality !!!
Another oversimplification / strawman... There is a difference, especially for professionals, where you may not only threaten your own job, but may put at risk your professional reputation, EVEN IF THAT IS ONLY THE PERCEPTION that these risks are there... There is also a good deal of indoctrination in universities, I'd explain the intricacies of this as well, but you'll just distort that to your ends anyway.


So pat yourself on the back ... you da man !!!

You would think this is just an ego thing... Here's a hint, psychology today is not a reliable source for accurate information.

They are just legal drug pushers.



So, that's why people turn up in huge numbers at protests, write letters to Parliament, demand answers from officialdom, rattle cages, sue governments everyday of the year ... whoda thunk it ... :roll::roll::roll:

http://www.hermes-press.com/london2.jpg

http://www.topia.net/Images/DC092405.gif

Nobody, it seems, is prepared to take a stand ... as they wish to avoid conflict and not shake the boat ... well, that goes a long way to explain all those MASSIVE anti-war protests and suchlike then !!!

Nobody is prepared to stand up and protest for something as small as stopping a village school from closing either then I take it ...

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images...39273977032/Children-from-Wyndford-pr-001.jpg

Nobody was prepared to stand up and protest against cuts to school dinner services ...

" A coalition of senior doctors and nurses have written to the education secretary, Michael Gove, expressing "deep concern" at his decision to axe plans for free school meals for half a million primary school children from low-income families.

The Royal College of Nursing, Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health and Royal College of Physicians are the latest groups to join the backlash against the controversial move, saying the scheme would have lifted 50,000 young people out of poverty and cut education and health inequalities by giving them more nutritious lunches
."

Free school meals: Health professionals join the backlash over cuts | Education | The Guardian

Nobody ... "except" truthers it seems ...are brave enough to shake boats ...

"More than 250,000 people have attended a march and rally in central London against public spending cuts"

BBC News - Anti-cuts march: Tens of thousands at London protest

"About 3,000 journalists who are members of the National Union of Journalists took part in the one-day strike, which caused some disruption to programming."

"The strike is the second in less than a year at the broadcaster. About 4,100 BBC journalists went on a 48-hour strike last November to protest planned cuts to pensions"

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/16/b...rnalists-in-one-day-strike-over-job-cuts.html

"In spite of the fact that 8 December is a public holiday in Malta, with a number of towns and villages celebrating religious feasts, a crowd of more than 300 animal lovers gathered to protest against a travelling circus with animals which opened its doors to the public on the same day."

International Animal Rescue - News - Circus protest draws crowds in Malta

Seems even circus animals can get more people to turn up in protest at their treatment than any truther group seems to ... there must be a reason for that ???

Bet you don't realise the reason is there aren't enough people stupid enough to fall for truther guff ... that most people see it for the lunacy it is !!!

Ya, of course these non-political heart tugging issues get more of a response, than the highly charged political issue, that is not truly clear cut in many senses, add to that the true majority who don't even know anything about anything political.

This would be a bandwagon fallacy / appeal to popularity, btw.

Thems all just wurds up there, meaningless wurds that will remain meaningless in 10 years time ... 50 years time ... 1000 years time ... it is just so much empty rhetoric !!!

Wow... Had to fight back at the laughter here. Your claim is that the PNAC document was "rhetoric"... Colorful word play... Dumb criminals the world over would wish you could set the precedence on that... "I wasnt confessing, it was rhetoric."

You should read that document with a timeline of bush's presidency next and tell me how much was "rhetoric" when you're done.
 
Last edited:
BM
Garbage sites just like ones you link to to show your point. At least they take you to reasonalble papers rather than just opinions.

Specifically, which source are you talking about? And what specifically is wrong with it ?

just a reminder this thread was on Gage not nist..

can you really make such a tight distinction, because Gage is critical of NISTS's investigation?

More relevant to the topic than Your link to griffons "debunking" (gotta use the term loosely)
 
Specifically, which source are you talking about? And what specifically is wrong with it ?

can you really make such a tight distinction, because Gage is critical of NISTS's investigation?

More relevant to the topic than Your link to griffons "debunking" (gotta use the term loosely)

after reviewing this thread I will retract that you provide gargage links on this thread. You don't provide any. You attack facts that others provide.

Nice dodge to rap what Gage says back to the govt. Prove to me that Gage is correct. You pretty much have been shown he cherry picks data, uses other for information who's creditablity is in question. I can't believe you believe Gage.
 
after reviewing this thread I will retract that you provide gargage links on this thread. You don't provide any. You attack facts that others provide.

Ya, that sounds right for this thread, I haven't felt the need to offer much for sources (except for the nano-thermite material, I haven't forgotten that one) because I've already shown sources to the people asking so many times that it's become to the point where it's a tactic being used to dodge an issue by saying that it's unsourced.

I don't attack facts, I attack the fallacies.

See, I agree with the facts :
- The plane crash knocked off the fire-proofing from the impact area (I disagree about the assumption NIST makes that this occured over the entire floor area of all impacted floors)
- That there was a fireball of fuel that burned in the impact zone (NOT over the entirety of the floor area that is an assumption used by NIST and Bazant)
- I agree that fire weakens steel (but I disagree that the steel had weakened in such a way that the entire structure failed over multiple floors simultaneously as is a required assumption for the building to collapse through the structurally sound lower section)

So, when you start basing your points on logically sound arguments then you'll start to make some real headway.

Nice dodge to rap what Gage says back to the govt. Prove to me that Gage is correct. You pretty much have been shown he cherry picks data, uses other for information who's creditablity is in question. I can't believe you believe Gage.

That's not a dodge... that's a fact. Gage isn't making some arbitrary analysis, he's using what NIST says, details what is expected in that type of described circumstance and compares that with what actually happened, and compares that to what happens in controlled demolitions.

Where was I shown that he cherry picks data??? Post # should suffice....

The credibility is not in question to rational analysis... and anyone that's obtained a sample for their own independent tests has corroborated Jones' paper.

Really, it's not even about "believing Gage", it's about not simply accepting that Gage is not credible based on opinions and slander. Maybe if you actually addressed topics that Gage discusses in specifics and explain how Gage is wrong on those issues (in a logically sound manner)... then you'll have made a valid point.

Really when you boil it down, I don't need to agree with ANY of what Gage talks about to know that 9-11 was a bigger job than we have been told.... it just happens that I do agree with his groups analysis of the subject matter.
 
See it's debunked because Chandlers name is on it... it's completely fallacious, but that's what the "debunking" is going to boil down to.

That hasn't even happened. If what they say is indeed "junk", as is alleged, it shouldn't be too difficult for someone with a scientific background, as that poster claims to have, to demonstrate that. Yet here we are, 2 weeks later and still nothing.
 
Back
Top Bottom