IS Forum
Forum Index Register Members List Events Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Help

Go Back   International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories
 


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.
Tags ae911truth , richard gage , wtc 7 , wtc 7 report

Reply
Old 19th February 2011, 02:06 PM   #1
grandmastershek
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?

Last edited by grandmastershek; 19th February 2011 at 02:13 PM.
grandmastershek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th February 2011, 02:13 PM   #2
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Quote:
A professional film crew with three cameras will be recording the debate, so this important educational material can later be presented to a much wider audience in the form of a DVD.
Available soon at the AE store for the everyday low price of $29.99.

__________________
"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
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th February 2011, 02:18 PM   #3
grandmastershek
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,461
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Available soon at the AE store for the everyday low price of $29.99.

Come watch Richie debate someone with no scientific background whatsoever!

I really shouldn't make a big deal about though. Gravy is a tour guide and he had Richie crying in a puddle of his own piss. So maybe Rev. Mohr will put up a better fight than I am presuming.
grandmastershek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th February 2011, 04:02 PM   #4
The Big Dog
Guest
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 29,742
Uh, Reverend Mohr sounds like a truther.

Way to go Gage, ya weakling.
The Big Dog is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th February 2011, 04:14 PM   #5
grandmastershek
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,461
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
Uh, Reverend Mohr sounds like a truther.

Way to go Gage, ya weakling.
I get the feeling it will go something like:

"World Trade center 7 fell at free fall speed!"

"You know what!? You're right!".
grandmastershek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th February 2011, 04:19 PM   #6
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by grandmastershek View Post
I get the feeling it will go something like:

"World Trade center 7 fell at free fall speed!"

"You know what!? You're right!".
I imagine:

Gage: "I'll show my slides, you show yours, we'll talk a bit and split the take 70/30".
__________________
"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
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th February 2011, 04:24 PM   #7
grandmastershek
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,461
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
I imagine:

Gage: "I'll show my slides, you show yours, we'll talk a bit and split the take 70/30".
It will be a classic snake oil show. Gage will do his moronic poll and a the end the reverend will raise his hand too. Then he will be paraded as wonderful new convert.
grandmastershek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th February 2011, 05:20 PM   #8
R.Mackey
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.
R.Mackey is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 19th February 2011, 09:22 PM   #9
tsig
a carbon based life-form
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Posts: 39,049
Originally Posted by 16.5 View Post
Uh, Reverend Mohr sounds like a truther.

Way to go Gage, ya weakling.
Mohr has examined the NIST reports, found them to be flawed, and is deeply interested in determining the truth about this pivotal event.




Yep sounds more like a revival meeting than a debate.
tsig is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2011, 11:44 AM   #10
grandmastershek
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".
grandmastershek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2011, 01:13 PM   #11
Brainster
Penultimate Amazing
 
Brainster's Avatar
 
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.
Brainster is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2011, 01:47 PM   #12
Mr.Herbert
Graduate Poster
 
Mr.Herbert's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 1,448
Did he bring up the red cross radio with the countdown before 7 collapsed?
Mr.Herbert is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2011, 03:25 PM   #13
grandmastershek
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,461
Originally Posted by Brainster View Post
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.
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:
I've read some nasty things about Richard Gage already, and I have been in extensive contact with Ryan Mackey, whose white paper on David Ray Griffin was an incredible resource for me. Please tell the Randi folks to come out for the debate. I could use your support. And the skeptics of all stripes. They are requesting a $10 donation but no one will be turned away.

I have been a lifelong friend of someone who got into the 911 Truth
movement and now is a major organizer. She asked me to watch the videos and attend the meetings, and at first I was completely unimpressed. But like many people, I was upset with the Bush administration's rush to war in Iraq, and resented their methodology of "proving" WMDs against Saddam. I am no scientist, but science has been a lifelong hobby of mine. When I first saw
Richard Gage's 911 Blueprint for Truth video, I was initially impressed and
went back to give the whole theory a second look. He is the most compelling, articulate speaker the 911 Truth Movement has. But I quickly realized the
science just isn't there to support his claims and eventually challenged him to a debate. Initially my Truther friend resisted the idea, so I had to convince her to host this debate. I was surprised that Gage accepted.

Don't be too quick to dismiss me personally because I make my living running
a wedding chapel. I studied journalism with a crack investigative journalist
from the St Louis Post Dispatch who helped break the Mafia's stranglehold on City Hall. I am well versed in the techniques and goals of investigative
journalism. I have cultivated very strong speaking skills and am familiar
with rhetorical devices etc. I will make sure people know that a real
scientific debate would be scientist-to-scientist and that this is not that.
Instead, I am a journalist investigating and exposing as false the claims of
the controlled demolition theory. The job of a journalist is to look at both
sides and then share with his audience what he has found, in a simple,
direct way that is understandable to the average reader or listener. I
report the facts and the audience evaluates them. In the debate format
that's changed a bit, because I am advocating for Natural Collapse. So put me on the editorial page.

I will also treat my audience and my opponent with complete respect. I will
make a "unifying statement" to set a tone that will help those who disagree with me let down their defenses and be open to what I have to say. It will help a lot that I was initially impressed with Gage's presentation. That's
why I took him on. His rhetorical style is formidable and convincing. And
NIST has promised to email me responses to some tough questions about their reports (this will be arriving very soon). I've talked with Kevin Ryan, with
Ryan Mackey, and others. That's what investigative journalists do. Before
running this chapel, I published a classical music magazine and wrote music articles which sometimes were investigative in nature. Not as tough as my mentor having guns pointed at him by members of the St Louis Mafia, but
several times I had to dig pretty deep to reveal things that musical
organizations didn't want the public to know. I bring that experience to
bear on this debate.


A lot of people have told me that this debate will only strengthen the Truth Movement by granting legitimacy to Richard Gage. I don't have the
qualifications to legitimize him in that way (as you pointed out on a recent post: thanks for the free publicity for my wedding chapel).

I have put on my journalist hat and this has journalistic value because a segment of thje population is interesterd in it. I felt that having a compelling, affable, unthreatening, respectful person who will take on Gage's claims and have that information actually available within the Truth movement may help people who are looking at the issue get the other side. A depressing tendency I've seen is that people who don't know how to do independent research will tend to "research" by getting more videos and books from the Truth movement or the debunkers' websites only. This will be a rare inside resource for potential new Truthers. I can honestly present myself as a guy who was intrigued and interested but on further reflection decided that there is no science behind Gage's assertions. That's less threatening, frankly, than the Randi position that anyone who agrees with the Truthers is an idiot.

My journalism teacher taught me to trust my audience, and not get caught up in who will believe you and who won't. Just report the facts, which I promise I will do to the best of my ability. I really hope some Randi people
come out to see it and let me know how I did!

Best regards,Chris Mohr
The message was only changed to omit his email address and formatting issues; which I obviously didn't fully fix.

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.

Last edited by grandmastershek; 20th February 2011 at 04:25 PM.
grandmastershek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 20th February 2011, 04:44 PM   #14
Scott Sommers
Illuminator
 
Scott Sommers's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Posts: 3,866
Quote:
I was initially impressed and went back to give the whole theory a second look. He is the most compelling, articulate speaker the 911 Truth Movement has. But I quickly realized the science just isn't there to support his claims
Originally Posted by grandmastershek View Post
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.
This parallels my experince listening to him. When you hear him in clips or without much knowledge of the debates, he comes across as having a compelling story. The more you listen to him, the more you realize he is making things up and even contradicting himself. He seems to have no knowledge of the body of research literature using data from 911. He's not just hiding it; he seems to be unaware of it.
__________________
See my blog,
Wonders of the Invisible World
Scott Sommers is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st February 2011, 08:59 AM   #15
grandmastershek
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".
grandmastershek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st February 2011, 11:04 AM   #16
alienentity
Illuminator
 
alienentity's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 4,325
Originally Posted by grandmastershek View Post
...
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.
He knows what it means: bathing in and sowing pseudo-scientific terms means more income for him. He is getting paid to continue this blather.
__________________
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'
alienentity is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 21st February 2011, 11:17 AM   #17
Grizzly Bear
このマスクによっ
 
Grizzly Bear's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 7,866
Originally Posted by grandmastershek View Post
Around 1:20:00 into the radio debate:

"...this new phenomena called thermal expansion" Richard Gage
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).
__________________
Grizzly Bear is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 22nd February 2011, 10:44 AM   #18
grandmastershek
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:
Hello all,

As you know, I am debating Richard Gage in Boulder March 6 (details to follow). I've been having problems registering onto the chat room so Grandmastershek is posting for me. Ryan Mackey has answered almost all my questions but a few remain:

I have read that iron microspheres in the WTC dust could have come from fly ash in the concrete or printer toner. Are there any photos of microspheres in either of these? I am using dozens of pictures to rebut Gage and such a photo would be great to use.

I think I pretty much understand the free fall collapse of the north perimeter of Building 7 (it was a work in progress with my radio debate). NIST should be giving their answer to this very soon as well. Ryan Mackey did a great job with this and I am pretty satisfied, but I want a very strong narrative for this part of the debate and other ideas welcome.

Eutectic steel: my understanding is that while it is a mystery how it was created in the WTC fires, it is also means steel can melt at office-fire temperatures, not thermitic temps. Plus there is not enough of it to explain the global collapse. Any other data which can help with a simple narrative about this welcome.

For any of you who have listened to the debate: any gross scientific inaccuracies? If so, I welcome corrections.

I'm doing this for free. If it gets sold, I will be glad to know that another perspective is being offered at least.

Thanks all,
Chris Mohr
The 1 gross scientific inaccuracy I noted earlier was the bit about "a new phenomenon called thermal expansion". A truther on youtube pointed to the gross quote mining & misrepersentation that goes into making this claim. For example here is how Prisonplanet phrases it.

Quote:
NIST Claims “New Phenomenon” Occurred For First Time Ever In Collapse Of WTC 7
In its final report on the collapse of WTC 7 that news outlets are reporting “puts 9/11 conspiracy theories to bed,” NIST claims that the never before observed “new phenomenon” of “thermal expansion” was to blame for the destruction of the building...
This is how NIST's quote was presented to me:
Quote:
This study has identified thermal expansion as a new phenomenon.
I am assuming this is the version Gage, like most truthers, is work with. But the entire quote doesn't reference thermal expansion as a new phenomenon, but a new one for building collapses.

Quote:
This study has identified thermal expansion as a new phenomenon that can cause structural collapse. (Opening Statement
Press Briefing—August 21, 2008, Report on the Collapse of World Trade Center Building 7, Shyam Sunder Lead Investigator)
Anyone who takes 5 secs to Google thermal expansion, or graduated high school, could see its nowhere near new. Also, consider my earlier post about path of least resistance as it applies to air flow as opposed to explosive shock wave. IIRC Mythbusters did an episode where they pressurized a plane to test the suck-out theory after the discharge of a gun. The problem they encountered was that when they pressurized the plane they kept getting blow out from 1 cockpit window (the path of least resistance). According to Gage all the windows should have blown out. He has the concept totally backwards. You could also use a tire blow out as an example.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE

Last edited by grandmastershek; 22nd February 2011 at 11:18 AM.
grandmastershek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2011, 11:02 AM   #19
newton3376
The Truth Movement.....still not at 1%
 
newton3376's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,320
Should be yet another debate where a truther gets schooled in basic science and reasoning....
__________________
AE911 Truth....still failing to get 1%
newton3376 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2011, 03:14 PM   #20
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by Scott Sommers View Post
This parallels my experince listening to him. When you hear him in clips or without much knowledge of the debates, he comes across as having a compelling story. The more you listen to him, the more you realize he is making things up and even contradicting himself. He seems to have no knowledge of the body of research literature using data from 911. He's not just hiding it; he seems to be unaware of it.
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
Miragememories is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2011, 03:23 PM   #21
beachnut
Penultimate Amazing
 
beachnut's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Dog House
Posts: 26,122
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
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
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.
beachnut is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2011, 03:28 PM   #22
Edx
Philosopher
 
Edx's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 5,642
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post

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.
Is thermal expansion made up by NIST or not?

You really going to back Gage on that?
Edx is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2011, 03:43 PM   #23
grandmastershek
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,461
Originally Posted by Scott Sommers View Post
The more you listen to him, the more you realize he is making things up and even contradicting himself.
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.

Last edited by grandmastershek; 24th February 2011 at 03:44 PM.
grandmastershek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2011, 03:44 PM   #24
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by Edx View Post
Is thermal expansion made up by NIST or not?

You really going to back Gage on that?
Thermal expansion is as revealing as the fact that ice melts.

The fact that the NIST based their findings on thermal expansion is most surprising given how common that piece of knowledge is.

MM
Miragememories is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2011, 03:51 PM   #25
brazenlilraisin
...tart
 
brazenlilraisin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Posts: 660
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Thermal expansion is as revealing as the fact that ice melts.


MM
Would Gage call the fact that ice melts a "new phenomena" too?
__________________
"LMAO! pure intelligets, have you read my posts?"--superlogicalthinker
brazenlilraisin is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2011, 03:54 PM   #26
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by brazenlilraisin View Post
Would Gage call the fact that ice melts a "new phenomena" too?
Gage would call it anything you want, for a price.


__________________
"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
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2011, 03:58 PM   #27
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
Gage would call it anything you want, for a price.


Libel means nothing to you obviously.

MM
Miragememories is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2011, 03:59 PM   #28
tfk
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,454
Originally Posted by grandmastershek View Post
‎"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
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] So Gage is also a liar.

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.

Last edited by tfk; 24th February 2011 at 04:33 PM.
tfk is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2011, 04:03 PM   #29
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Libel means nothing to you obviously.

MM
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
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2011, 04:06 PM   #30
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
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).


Cut 'n paste does not make an argument.

But maybe it suffices for the standard which you adhere to.

MM
Miragememories is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2011, 04:11 PM   #31
grandmastershek
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,461
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Thermal expansion is as revealing as the fact that ice melts.

The fact that the NIST based their findings on thermal expansion is most surprising given how common that piece of knowledge is.

MM
Nice dodge MM. Now answer the question. Did NIST make up thermal expansion, as Gage claimed, or not?
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Cut 'n paste does not make an argument.

But maybe it suffices for the standard which you adhere to.

MM
Your "LA LA LA LA LAAA!!!" has been noted.

Last edited by grandmastershek; 24th February 2011 at 04:12 PM.
grandmastershek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2011, 04:11 PM   #32
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Cut 'n paste does not make an argument.

But maybe it suffices for the standard which you adhere to.

MM
What argument should I be trying to "make". That I know what "Libel" means?
__________________
"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
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2011, 04:12 PM   #33
grandmastershek
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,461
Originally Posted by DGM View Post
What argument should I be trying to "make". That I know what "Libel" means?
No silly...follow MM's lead and change the subject.

Also, I am not sure if this was noted elsewhere in the thread but Rev Mohr has asked if anyone from JREF lives in the area (Colorado I believe) to try to attend.

Last edited by grandmastershek; 24th February 2011 at 04:20 PM.
grandmastershek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 24th February 2011, 09:14 PM   #34
Joey McGee
Banned
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 10,307
Richard Gage? But he totally proved his theories with those cardboard boxes!

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the ISF. The ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.
I AGREE


Look out Mohr, if he gets out the boxes it's OVER!!!


Last edited by Joey McGee; 24th February 2011 at 09:33 PM.
Joey McGee is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2011, 08:06 AM   #35
newton3376
The Truth Movement.....still not at 1%
 
newton3376's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 1,320
Originally Posted by tfk View Post
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] So Gage is also a liar.

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.
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%
newton3376 is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2011, 09:31 AM   #36
Miragememories
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Earth
Posts: 4,473
Originally Posted by grandmastershek View Post
Nice dodge MM. Now answer the question. Did NIST make up thermal expansion, as Gage claimed, or not?
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
Miragememories is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2011, 09:35 AM   #37
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Their theory about how thermal expansion was a new previously unconsidered phenomenon leading to spectacular building failures is what I call to question.

MM
Wait.......Whoever said that?

__________________
"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
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2011, 10:26 AM   #38
grandmastershek
Graduate Poster
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Posts: 1,461
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
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
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?
grandmastershek is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2011, 12:43 PM   #39
sheeplesnshills
Illuminator
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 3,706
Originally Posted by Miragememories View Post
Libel means nothing to you obviously.

MM
LOL It would be hilarious if Gage accused anyone of libel......Bring it on!
sheeplesnshills is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Old 25th February 2011, 01:20 PM   #40
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
 
DGM's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: West of Northshore MA
Posts: 24,748
Originally Posted by sheeplesnshills View Post
LOL It would be hilarious if Gage accused anyone of libel......Bring it on!
You know his first step would be to put up a "donate to the justice" link.

__________________
"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
DGM is offline   Quote this post in a PM   Nominate this post for this month's language award Copy a direct link to this post Reply With Quote Back to Top
Reply

International Skeptics Forum » General Topics » Conspiracies and Conspiracy Theories » 9/11 Conspiracy Theories

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:00 AM.
Powered by vBulletin. Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

This forum began as part of the James Randi Education Foundation (JREF). However, the forum now exists as
an independent entity with no affiliation with or endorsement by the JREF, including the section in reference to "JREF" topics.

Disclaimer: Messages posted in the Forum are solely the opinion of their authors.