|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
19th February 2011, 02:06 PM | #1 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,461
|
Gage's next debate
"It has been difficult to find defenders of the official story who will acknowledge in a scientific and sincere manner the troubling forensic evidence that we present."
Translation: If you don't accept the smoke n mirror show of Jones & AE911Truth, they will not debate you. http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-se...io-debate.html Interestingly enough out of all the people Gage could debate, he decides to go against a wedding officiant with an English degree. I guess he is tired of getting schooled by scientists. Take note that the event is being sponsored by a Colorado based truther group. So no doubt the audience will be stacked with basking sharks in a sea of ignorance. Maybe I will invite Mr. Mohr over here to have him hash out his ideas? |
19th February 2011, 02:13 PM | #2 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
Quote:
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
19th February 2011, 02:18 PM | #3 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,461
|
|
19th February 2011, 04:02 PM | #4 |
Guest
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
|
Uh, Reverend Mohr sounds like a truther.
Way to go Gage, ya weakling. |
19th February 2011, 04:14 PM | #5 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,461
|
|
19th February 2011, 04:19 PM | #6 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
19th February 2011, 04:24 PM | #7 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,461
|
|
19th February 2011, 05:20 PM | #8 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7,854
|
Mr. Mohr has been asking me a few of the standard questions over e-mail. Personally I wouldn't waste any time on Gage, particularly given that he and his organization have promised to rebut my whitepaper and I have yet to see anything from them... but it's his time to spend on it.
|
19th February 2011, 09:22 PM | #9 |
a carbon based life-form
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
|
|
20th February 2011, 11:44 AM | #10 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,461
|
Radio "preview" of the debate. The station is a bastion of woo. Right off the bat they contend there was no investigation before "The Jersey Girls", but are waiting for "the facts".
|
20th February 2011, 01:13 PM | #11 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 20,571
|
Listening to the radio debate now. Some highlights:
1. Gage (at about 53:00 claims that the mass of the top part of the North Tower "disintegrated" in the first four seconds of the collapse and thus had no weight. 2. Later (54:00) Gage contends that 98% of the debris from the top part is "outside the building". So much for "into its own footprint" that Gage usually repeats as a mantra for why the collapse resembles a controlled demolition. 3. Gage gets into the whole "pulverized" nonsense, going to the extent of claiming that all the filing cabinets are missing (!). 4. Mohr generally does an excellent job, although I did wince when he wasted his time for rebuttal of the molten steel and microspheres issue to talking about the eutectic reaction and agreeing that it was a mystery. He does express doubt about some of the arguments raised by the "debunkers", but it appears to me that he does this in a solid, skeptical manner in that he just has not been convinced. I see no evidence that he's really a "Truther" and claims that he will roll over for Gage in the full debate seem unfair. |
__________________
My new blog: Recent Reads. 1960s Comic Book Nostalgia Visit the Screw Loose Change blog. |
|
20th February 2011, 01:47 PM | #12 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,448
|
Did he bring up the red cross radio with the countdown before 7 collapsed?
|
__________________
www.curedfoundation.org Learn more about EOE here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eosinophilic_esophagitis |
|
20th February 2011, 03:25 PM | #13 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,461
|
Very true. I think I was hasty. I have been swapping emails with him and he seems genuine. He gave me kind permission to post his response here.
Quote:
However,since I am aware that Rev. Mohr has at least checked in here I would strongly urge he engage in discussion here as I noted a few issues with regards to his points (i.e.-NIST ruled out explosives beforehand). I swear to ?, the mroe I listne to Richie the more I am convinced he is a blithering idiot. How can you expect an explosive shockwave to create localized breakage of 1 or 2 windows, meanwhile expecting air to cause multiple failures? WTF man! get your head out of your ass! Spend some time reading anything on fluid mechanics. This idiot constantly throws around the phrase "path of least resistance" with no idea WTF it even means. |
20th February 2011, 04:44 PM | #14 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,866
|
Quote:
|
21st February 2011, 08:59 AM | #15 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,461
|
Around 1:20:00 into the radio debate:
"...this new phenomena called thermal expansion" Richard Gage Holy ****! I swear its better other people debate Gage, because if that was me I would have just responded "You sir are the sorriest fool known to man. You have to be the most willfully ignorant jack-hole to ever wander out of a woman's vagina". |
21st February 2011, 11:04 AM | #16 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
|
|
__________________
Heiwa - 'Anyone suggesting that part C structure can one-way crush down part A structure is complicit to mass murder!' 000063 - 'Problem with the Truthers' theories is that anyone with enough power to pull it off doesn't need to in the first place.' mrkinnies 'I'm not a no-planer' 'I don't believe Flight 77 hit the Pentagon' |
|
21st February 2011, 11:17 AM | #17 |
このマスクによっ
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,866
|
Every time I see this architect say this phrase I become gravely concerned about the safety of his clients. Although in my experience this wasn't a thorough topic in my own academic progression, it came up several times as an issue that needs to be addressed among everything else in design because unengineered it can make for some very dangerous conditions for occupants. Doesn't the ethics code require architects to demonstrate a certain standard of reasonable care and competence? Doesn't look like Gage gives a **** all that much about the ethics codes (probably why he had to remove the AIA logo from his site some years back).
|
__________________
Current Set:http://i.imgur.com/IoqiUdK.jpg |
|
22nd February 2011, 10:44 AM | #18 | ||||||
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,461
|
Apparently Rev. Mohr is having trouble registering and he asked me to post his questions here. So I am guessing he has been checking the threads.
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
||||||
24th February 2011, 03:14 PM | #20 |
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
|
If you wish to have any credibility, defend your statements.
Of course the JREF circus will accept your rhetoric; that is preaching to the chorus. If Gage is making things up (lying), then it should be like "shooting fish in a barrel" to list his lies and show them as such. The fact that you fail to do so, suggests that the only one misrepresenting the truth is yourself! MM |
24th February 2011, 03:23 PM | #21 |
Penultimate Amazing
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
|
All of Gages claims are nonsense. Which part of "all of" do you not understand? Your list of evidence to support Gage's claims, is zero. If you had something you post it, instead you post nothing. Start a thread for your 70k a year fraud hero, present your evidence. Darn, you have nothing. No thread for you.
|
24th February 2011, 03:28 PM | #22 |
Philosopher
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
|
|
24th February 2011, 03:43 PM | #23 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,461
|
Something along the lines of this...I was watching the presentation he & Sullivan gave and Richie said something like, "in our list of CD features we have 'came down in its own footprint', and our critics note that WTC 7 didn't come straight down, but leaned to one side. What do you say in response?" And his response was that not all CD's come straight down. So has Richie changed his list? Doubtit. It was just his way of saying, well it doesn't matter how wrong we really are it was still a CD no matter what.
|
24th February 2011, 03:44 PM | #24 |
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
|
|
24th February 2011, 03:51 PM | #25 |
...tart
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 660
|
|
__________________
"LMAO! pure intelligets, have you read my posts?"--superlogicalthinker
|
|
24th February 2011, 03:54 PM | #26 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
24th February 2011, 03:58 PM | #27 |
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
|
|
24th February 2011, 03:59 PM | #28 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,454
|
I personally sent an invitation to him and the engineers at ae911t to come here and debate their issues, and to post the debate both here & there.
There response: "Nope..." ETA: [softened] This comment doesn't rise to Gage saying explicitly "no one will debate us." So I rescind my comment. The best interpretation of Gage's comment is "Debunkers hear what we present & laugh at us." And THAT is not a lie. It's the FSM's honest truth. I have heard others at ae911t claim that we won't debate them. Those comments, based on my offer, are not true. |
24th February 2011, 04:03 PM | #29 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
a : a written or oral defamatory statement or representation that conveys an unjustly unfavorable impression
(1) : a statement or representation published without just cause and tending to expose another to public contempt (2) : defamation of a person by written or representational means (3) : the publication of blasphemous, treasonable, seditious, or obscene writings or pictures ( 4) : the act, tort, or crime of publishing such a libel. I think I could make the case. (I know my lawyer could). |
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
24th February 2011, 04:06 PM | #30 |
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
|
|
24th February 2011, 04:11 PM | #31 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,461
|
|
24th February 2011, 04:11 PM | #32 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
24th February 2011, 04:12 PM | #33 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,461
|
|
24th February 2011, 09:14 PM | #34 | |||
Banned
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 10,307
|
Richard Gage? But he totally proved his theories with those cardboard boxes!
Look out Mohr, if he gets out the boxes it's OVER!!! |
|||
25th February 2011, 08:06 AM | #35 |
The Truth Movement.....still not at 1%
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,320
|
I think the problem is that Gage (and the rest of the truthers) prefer debates that give them some kind of publicity or notoriety. The last thing they want is a written, technical debate because they do not have a prayer in the world.
It's much more difficult to use certain debating strategies in a technical debate, especially if it's a written one. If truthers had any real arguments they would be publishing in journals, presenting at technical conferences, and convincing more engineers/scientists then just a handful out of thousands and thousands. |
__________________
AE911 Truth....still failing to get 1% |
|
25th February 2011, 09:31 AM | #36 |
Banned
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
|
Dodge?
The fact that steel expands when heated is old news. Stuff that the NIST should know down to the very physics. Their theory about how thermal expansion was a new previously unconsidered phenomenon leading to spectacular building failures is what I call to question. MM |
25th February 2011, 09:35 AM | #37 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
25th February 2011, 10:26 AM | #38 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,461
|
Yet you don't question that either Gage:
a. Quote mined NIST to make TE appear as something they made up. or b. He himself is totally oblivious to something any high school senior could explain adequately. Secondly, when will you be validating you concerns beyond fallacious reasoning? |
25th February 2011, 12:43 PM | #39 |
Illuminator
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,706
|
|
25th February 2011, 01:20 PM | #40 |
Skeptic not Atheist
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
|
|
__________________
"Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley "How many leaves on the seventh branch of the fourth tree?" is meaningless when you are in the wrong forest: ozeco41 |
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|