Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
redhen

911 inside job - for what?

4,457 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

RaptorBites

You wrote a whole post to point out that slander in the legal definition, opposed to the common dictionary definition, is exaggerated?

Well heck, honestly, I wasn’t planning to press charges.

:lol::lol::lol:

The point is that RaptorBites has no evidence to prove his claims against Gage and AE911T.

Ahh yes. I do not have proof that Gage makes a living off AE911T claptrap peddling.

Guidestar.org is a database that tracks nonprofit organization tax form 990.

http://www.guidestar.org/

Search for EIN 26-1532493

Preview report, inside report select download 2011 form 990.

Page 7.

Turn attention to Richard Gage line.

Average hours worked in a week 80. (Claim that working for the organization is his full time job. Unless of course, he works somewhere else and is falsifying IRS forms.)

Compensation $85,008 for fy2011.

Do the same for fy2010 and compensation is a little over $80,000

Fy2009 shows $75,000

All of this is public record. Unless you have an explanation why Gage is the only paid employee listed for AE911T on their 2011 form??

So, is it sufficient to say, if AE911T goes down the drain, Gage would be out of work? Yes, and this is the proof.

Your turn to provide evidence that my "slander" is now unjustified Q....

Edited by RaptorBites
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens

:lol:

Yes, slander as in when Chrlzs claimed I disparaged academia in everyday application, when there is clearly no evidence of that. No, not as in when I said many official story adherents and Yamato display unerring faith in their selected academia – because that is true – and I could prove it using their own words that they do not consider for a second it could possibly be incorrect (perhaps you were not following the discussion closely).

You do that, you prove that 'they do not consider for a second academia could possibly be incorrect'. I've been following your discussion, particularly your usual spin. But hey prove me wrong, demonstrate your telepathy that you know what they consider and what they do not.

I don’t accept how you are trying to present it: “It’s about money” is posed as fact, not an opinion.

How do you know? He neither said 'it is a fact' nor 'it is my opinion'. You're as usual taking it the way you want to, and adding content that is not there; how pseudo-skeptical of you.

And none of the above provided RaptorBites with any evidence to prove his claims against Gage and AE911T. Anything to divert from that point, hey? Sorry I don’t have time to quibble and mud-sling over use of the word ‘slander’. The point I was making is that without evidence the claims made against Gage and AE911T are hollow.

The 'point' I think you're actually making is that incentives to be biased only go one way in your world, which one may note is biased in itself.

Oh, along with the Bush reaction to formation of professional 9/11 truth groups – that was part of the point too.

Sorry, I don't have time to provide instruction for you on the 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' fallacy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q24

You do that, you prove that 'they do not consider for a second academia could possibly be incorrect'.

It is self-apparent. I described a number of ways in which the process of the selected current academia is or could be incorrect, including evidence from a U.S. lawyer involved in that process and examples of historical precedent where this has been the case, and the response I received completely blanked all of that to state, “no publication == no credibility”. That is how I know.

How do you know? He neither said 'it is a fact' nor 'it is my opinion'. You're as usual taking it the way you want to, and adding content that is not there; how pseudo-skeptical of you.

Usually when a statement is made with no qualifier it indicates presentation as a fact.

Why am I responding to this post??

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q24

Ahh yes. I do not have proof that Gage makes a living off AE911T claptrap peddling.

Guidestar.org is a database that tracks nonprofit organization tax form 990.

http://www.guidestar.org/

Search for EIN 26-1532493

Preview report, inside report select download 2011 form 990.

Page 7.

Turn attention to Richard Gage line.

Average hours worked in a week 80. (Claim that working for the organization is his full time job. Unless of course, he works somewhere else and is falsifying IRS forms.)

Compensation $85,008 for fy2011.

Do the same for fy2010 and compensation is a little over $80,000

Fy2009 shows $75,000

All of this is public record. Unless you have an explanation why Gage is the only paid employee listed for AE911T on their 2011 form??

So, is it sufficient to say, if AE911T goes down the drain, Gage would be out of work? Yes, and this is the proof.

Your turn to provide evidence that my "slander" is now unjustified Q....

The above post is a waste of time since I specifically stated in my response that I’m quite open to accept Gage draws a wage from the organisation, it makes sense and so he should for the hours he puts into AE911T – it’s not possible to live on thin air and run a set-up like that.

So please read again what I actually said: there is no evidence that AE911T was formed for the purpose of making money. That Gage finds the organisation now supports him financially can only have occurred later and is not the reason he states he initially founded AE911T.

Of course you can claim otherwise in your opinion, but there is no evidence for it.

It would be better to attack his argument than this blatant unproven ad hom attack on the messenger.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens

It is self-apparent. I described a number of ways in which the process of the selected current academia is or could be incorrect, including evidence from a U.S. lawyer involved in that process and examples of historical precedent where this has been the case, and the response I received completely blanked all of that to state, “no publication == no credibility”. That is how I know.

Well yes, 'no publication = no credibility' is correct until you 'prove' (your standard) that this supposed bias is incredibly pervasive. Your job is not to prove that it's happened historically, in Soviet society of all things, you have to prove it's happened on this topic and that it is widespread. 'Blanked all of that', ha, you say that like there's something compelling, or even much in terms of quantity, to 'all of that'.

Thanks for italicizing 'could be' though, another instance of proof being selectively required? Could be that Gage needs to keep trutherism alive, its validity notwithstanding, so he can earn a pay check, right? So it's now 'self-apparent' that Gage knows that his ideas are intellectually bankrupt but states otherwise because he needs/wants the money, based on your standards of self-apparent proof?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RaptorBites

The above post is a waste of time since I specifically stated in my response that I’m quite open to accept Gage draws a wage from the organisation, it makes sense and so he should for the hours he puts into AE911T – it’s not possible to live on thin air and run a set-up like that.

So please read again what I actually said: there is no evidence that AE911T was formed for the purpose of making money. That Gage finds the organisation now supports him financially can only have occurred later and is not the reason he states he initially founded AE911T.

Of course you can claim otherwise in your opinion, but there is no evidence for it.

It would be better to attack his argument than this blatant unproven ad hom attack on the messenger.

His arguments have been attacked. Ad nauseum!

Gage has pointed at Harrit et al paper as proof of thermite. Then claims that lateral ejections are proof of explosives, which is a direct contradiction to the thermite claim.

Gage doesn't need anyone to debunk his claims, he does a great job of that by himself already.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

So please read again what I actually said: there is no evidence that AE911T was formed for the purpose of making money. That Gage finds the organisation now supports him financially can only have occurred later and is not the reason he states he initially founded AE911T.

Richard Gage is not credible at all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q24

Well yes, 'no publication = no credibility' is correct until you 'prove' (your standard) that this supposed bias is incredibly pervasive. Your job is not to prove that it's happened historically, in Soviet society of all things, you have to prove it's happened on this topic and that it is widespread. 'Blanked all of that', ha, you say that like there's something compelling, or even much in terms of quantity, to 'all of that'.

You are discounting the firsthand account of a U.S. attorney and the inescapable politics that permeate the whole of society. There is no doubt that the argument is proven to be viable.

Thanks for italicizing 'could be' though, another instance of proof being selectively required? Could be that Gage needs to keep trutherism alive, its validity notwithstanding, so he can earn a pay check, right? So it's now 'self-apparent' that Gage knows that his ideas are intellectually bankrupt but states otherwise because he needs/wants the money, based on your standards of self-apparent proof?

I only need ‘could be’ where evidence is lacking and when supporting a new investigation.

I agree it ‘could be’ that Gage wants to keep ‘trutherism’ alive solely to maintain his paycheck, though there is no evidence of that, and I find it unlikely based on his own statements on the foundation of AE911T, the passion with which he delivers his message, the professional support he garners and the accuracy of his science (thus reliance on these ad homs against Gage in the first place).

Your above tongue in cheek argument that leads from that does not work at all and is not a reflection of my own argument(s). The factual accuracy of any argument that leads from acceptance of the ‘could be’ scenario is not ‘self-apparent’. You are getting confused and extending ‘self-apparent’ directly from ‘could be’ which is not what I did.

What would be ‘self-apparent’ and a reflection of my argument with Yamato, is my unerring faith in Gage if I claimed there is no way in the world your ‘could be’ argument above can be correct, and in fact disregarded it and refused to be drawn into consideration of that altogether. You could then claim my unerring faith in Gage is ‘self-apparent’ - the same way I used it – to state that Yamato’s unerring faith in current mainstream academia is ‘self-apparent’.

My ‘could be’ argument that ‘NIST are affected by the current political climate’ does not make it ‘self-apparent’ that ‘NIST are affected by the current political climate’.

So what we see is that any given argument is either ‘could be’ or ‘self-apparent’, you cannot extend the former to the latter like you did. The arguments I made; the ‘could be’ argument that ‘NIST are affected by the current political climate’ and the ‘self-apparent’ argument that ‘Yamato has unerring faith in NIST’ are quite separate.

Hopefully that clears up your misunderstanding.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Babe Ruth

To focus on the message rather than the messenger(s), the official story is impossible. From an architectural and engineering perspective to the aviation perspective, the OCT is contradicted by the evidence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

To focus on the message rather than the messenger(s), the official story is impossible. From an architectural and engineering perspective to the aviation perspective, the OCT is contradicted by the evidence.

The majority of architects, structural engineers, and demolition experts support the official story.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens

You are discounting the firsthand account of a U.S. attorney and the inescapable politics that permeate the whole of society. There is no doubt that the argument is proven to be viable.

What does the label, "US attorney", add to your argument, do you know how many attorneys we have in this country? There's nothing to discount, even if his complaint was valid, that doesn't explain squat; we're talking about the scientific community with the relevant expertise, not one supposed instance of injustice. You are discounting that the editors and peer reviewers of JEM put their reputations on the line when they approve papers for publication. Please, 'inescapable politics that permeate the whole society; I'd like evidence that the entire engineering community, which is composed of more than Americans by the way, is relevantly affected by these politics to the degree you are suggesting, good luck providing that. I know this it is frustrating for you and these excuses are valiant, but you are stuck with a fundamental inescapable fact: anyone can criticize and propose their own scientific theories, but it really doesn't mean a lot unless it's peer-reviewed and accepted by their scientific peers. If you think this kind of 'evidence' and these kind of arguments are convincing at all, then there is no reason you should believe in evolution; truthers are absolute pikers compared to creationists, and play lots of the same games unfortunately: lots of 'claims' that so-and-so published science is ridiculously wrong, whiny excuses why they can't get their science published, various presentations and speaking engagements in front of people with no expertise to evaluate their claims, claims that other scientists know they are right but are cowed by the pressure from the Darwinist majority. Anything to distract from the probability that they weren't published because their paper did not meet the scientific requirements of acceptance, which happens a lot including to scientists who are submitting papers that are politically neutral. Real scientists get back to work on their theory and continue their research, not whine.

I only need ‘could be’ where evidence is lacking and when supporting a new investigation.

You should never need 'could be' save for one situation, as a rebuttal of someone claiming 'it cannot be'. Which I don't think anyone has. Almost anything 'could be', so it's an empty statement.

(snip)

Hopefully that clears up your misunderstanding.

A little, although our conversation seems to be based initially on your misunderstanding. Here was the flow:

conspiracy buff: "Just so you get an idea of how outrageous the official 9/11 story is; (video) Keep in mind, these are objective experts who studied the 9/11 commission's report and official story and had no axes to grind or reason to lie."

Raptor: "Yes, they have a reason to lie. It's about money. You realize Gage gets paid to do truther conferences... Right? You realize that in the 2009 AIA conference, Gage et al had a booth selling their DVDs and books? ... Richard Gage is no longer employed at the Walnut Creek based Architectural firm. Instead is now a full time truther. How does he make a living? You guessed it, by peddling the 9/11 truther conspiracy.... So you ask...why would AE911T lie or be dishonest? Simply put, if AE911T goes down the tubes, Gage would be homeless. So instead of claiming he is wrong (which has been obvious for a long time now) , his motive to continue propagating lies is actually quite obvious"

Q: There is no evidence that Richard Gage turned away from employment as a run-of-the-mill architect and formed AE911T with the purpose to make money. If that were the aim then he might have done better to start his own architecture firm rather than a non-profit organisation. That means any profits are put into producing more of the said DVDs, books, advertising and other activities – Gage cannot be expected to produce these for free! Sure, he may take a wage from the organisation (he has got to live on something, right?), though it is also apparent in listening to Gage that he believes in the science of his work and has a passion for his message. Your accusation, without evidence, that, “It’s about money”, is slander.

Emphasis mine. Nobody said anything about what the motivations were why AE911 was initially formed nor why Gage turned away from employment, neither of those are required for a reason for lying to be about money. It 'could be' that Gage didn't realize how full of it his theory was until he got more attention but liked his truther job better by that point, amongst a zillion other possibilities. Do you know Gage? If not, why are you holding forth on how 'he might have done better', that's for him to decide not you to guess about. Nobody claimed he formed AE911 to get rich, but Gage is making money from it (and hardly a bad salary given what Raptor's provided), which is motivation to keep the organization going no matter what; "there is no doubt that the argument is proven to be viable.", as you would say. Anyway, as far as your misunderstanding in case you missed it in what I quoted, the flow above is that buff claimed these 'objective experts' had no reason to lie, Raptor rebuts that by saying yes Gage does have reason to lie, money, and you falsely say that the his accusation is slander. It's not an accusation, it's a valid,and now evidenced thanks to Raptor's later post, rebuttal to what he exactly quoted from buff; money is a well-established reason to lie, it's motive. So it's not slander, it's definitely not an ad hom, it's a direct and valid rebuttal to what he disputed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
RaptorBites

To focus on the message rather than the messenger(s), the official story is impossible. From an architectural and engineering perspective to the aviation perspective, the OCT is contradicted by the evidence.

Which some of us are still waiting for you to present...while most of us have clearly abandoned any form of hope for you.

Edited by RaptorBites

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
acidhead

This thread is like a tennis match: you prove it - you prove it.

Fact is nothing has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Make your own judgement..

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
skyeagle409

This thread is like a tennis match: you prove it - you prove it.

Fact is nothing has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Make your own judgement..

It has been mentioned that explosives were used, but there is no evidence. Explosives make a lot of noise and yet, there are no sounds of explosions as the WTC buildings collapsed. Since there is no evidence of explosions on video, nor the sound of explosions on audio, nor explosions detected on seismic monitors nor explosive evidence found in the rubble, simply means no explosives were used. False claims of Richard Gage and Steven Jones have been successfully debunked with scientific evidence.

It has been mentioned that the WTC aircraft were flown under remote control, but when you look at the altitude flight data for the aircraft, it is evident that at no time were the aircraft flown under remote control. Here's the altitude flight data for American 77 and you will notice that whenever the autopilot was turned off, it was clearly evident the aircraft was not flown under remote control.

aa77_fdr_pressure_alt_s.jpg

In addition, I have mentioned that there was no way to modify aircraft of American Airlines and United Airlines and not attract a lot of attention from their mechanics and inspectors. It would not take very long for word to reach the FAA because only a certain number of B-767-200 and B-757-200 series aircraft were built so it is not difficult to track down each of those aircraft and modifying those aircraft would have left a long paper trail from Washington State to Washington D.C.

Each airframe of those aircraft have been accounted and I wish to add the following information because I have also mentioned that the B-767 and the B-757 are not fly-by-wire aircraft, which I brought up for a very good reason in light of claims that the WTC aircraft were modified to fly under remote control.

The 777 was Boeing's first true fly-by-wire design. The 757 and 767 apparently used a mechanical linkage with hydraulic power assist. Although the 757 and 767 are equipped with fully automatic flight controls, the pilot can always over-ride the automatic systems. Normally this is done by simply disabling the automatic systems, but in any event the mechanical linkage would always allow the pilot to wrestle control by applying sufficient force to the yoke. It would be like driving a car with a power steering pump failure.

Automatic Flight Control Systems [AFCS] are commonly known as autopilots, however the autopilot is only one part of the larger system that comprises a modern AFCS. The autopilot, with its control servos and hydraulic actuators, can manipulate the flight controls and throttles but it needs something to tell it what to do. There are multiple levels of this control.

The most basic, typically known as basic pitch and roll, is rarely used in normal flight operations. In basic pitch and roll the autopilot simply holds the aircraft in the attitude it was when the autopilot was engaged. The pilot can change the pitch and bank with a rocker switch and a knob and the aircraft will dutifully follow along.

More commonly used is simple automation mode. Using the Flight Control Panel [FCP] the pilot commands the autopilot to achieve certain basic goals. Some of these are "fly $heading", "maintain $altitude", and "throttle to maintain $airspeed". When maneuvering in the terminal area (close to the airport), the pilot will enter Air Traffic Control [ATC] instructions into the FCP and the autopilot will take care of actually flying the airplane to the targets the pilot sets. The main advantage of simple automation mode is that making changes is very quick, which is important in the busy terminal area.

The most advanced mode is full automation mode. In this mode, the pilot programs the Flight Management System [FMS] with the planned track for the entire flight. The FMS can be thought of as the aircraft's "central computer". When properly programmed, the FMS will command the autopilot to climb to the planned altitude, fly the planned route, and descend towards the destination. ATC commanded changes to the plan enroute are entered into the FMS, which will adjust its plan to fit the new instructions. Modern FMS's are commonly referred to as PFM Units, for Pure ****ing Magic. When properly programmed, they will unerringly guide the aircraft along a "wire in the sky", tell the pilot when he will arrive over every waypoint and at the destination to a tenth of a minute, and figure fuel remaining at every point along the route to the pound.

The FMS, however, does not include a Don't Crash Button. It lacks features designed to miss large buildings, it cannot be controlled in any way from the ground, and it can always be overridden by the pilot.

In other words, claims the aircraft were modified and flown under remote control has been successfully debunked. I am just touching the surface because other claims have been debunked as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zaphod222

9-11 truthers are an insult to our intelligence. Nuff said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q24

What does the label, "US attorney", add to your argument, do you know how many attorneys we have in this country? There's nothing to discount, even if his complaint was valid, that doesn't explain squat; we're talking about the scientific community with the relevant expertise, not one supposed instance of injustice. You are discounting that the editors and peer reviewers of JEM put their reputations on the line when they approve papers for publication. Please, 'inescapable politics that permeate the whole society; I'd like evidence that the entire engineering community, which is composed of more than Americans by the way, is relevantly affected by these politics to the degree you are suggesting, good luck providing that. I know this it is frustrating for you and these excuses are valiant, but you are stuck with a fundamental inescapable fact: anyone can criticize and propose their own scientific theories, but it really doesn't mean a lot unless it's peer-reviewed and accepted by their scientific peers.

You just went full circle and discounted it all again, i.e. you are not considering why certain papers are not peer-reviewed and accepted by their scientific peers.

The label “U.S. attorney” should indicate someone who knows a good argument from a bad argument. Remember Gourley didn’t have to make the argument; it was not a job or obligation; he wrote of his unfortunate experience off his own back. This suggests he thought he had a good argument to make, and being a “U.S. attorney”, he should know.

What do you mean, “There’s nothing to discount”?

Try this: -

  • “the Journal of Engineering Mechanics personnel have demonstrated a complete lack of scientific ethics”
  • “Dr. Bazant has published hundreds of papers at JEM, and seems to have the standing of something like a “favored author” over there”
  • “the rules at JEM that govern other authors do not apply to Dr. Bazant”
  • “The paper I submitted was under the 2000 word limit ... ASCE Guidelines also limit Closure papers to 2000 words. Seems only fair, right? ... Dr. Bazant was allowed to go on and on for at least 4 to 5 thousand words in response to my Discussion paper ... Dr. Bazant was allowed to completely ignore the 2000 word limit in criticizing me and my Discussion paper, when I complied with it in good faith.”
  • “Dr. Bazant is clearly held to a different standard at JEM. How can JEM possibly be seen as a fair and balanced in this situation?”

http://911blogger.com/node/18196

You do correctly note that, “the editors and peer reviewers of JEM put their reputations on the line when they approve papers for publication”. This is exactly a reason it is easier to take the safe option of arguing for/not disputing the 9/11 official theory and present status quo, it does not risk ones reputation in the mainstream.

As for the, “inescapable politics that permeate the whole of society” I mentioned, it’s a big subject and in our face every day, though many can’t see the wood for the trees. Basically, if you watch the tv, listen to the radio, read a newspaper or even talk with someone about current affairs (which I believe near all of society does regularly), it’s right there. If you read a history book or listen to our politicians, it’s right there. If you understand the conditioning which divides East from West, raises a form of racism disguised as patriotism and makes us believe we are the ‘good guys’, it’s right there. If you have heard the government story surrounding 9/11, it’s right there. If you know about the war in Afghanistan, it’s right there. No one can escape it. Well, short of spending your whole life living under a rock or... becoming aware of its existence and on guard to the everyday information you are continually receiving. Not too many achieve that. So the background all of this creates is the, “inescapable politics” that I refer to. And please don’t think I’m referring only to “Americans” or “engineers” – I’m including everyone who lives in anything that can be described as a society.

Now we have established that it exists, to what degree am I suggesting it affects science? I’m not suggesting anything extreme, that it can make black be white, or 2 + 2 = 5 (though give it time and we may need to reassess that)! I am suggesting a lot less, that it may lead one to conclude the occurrence of a less likely outcome that fits with the background of “inescapable politics”, as opposed to a more likely outcome that throws it into turmoil.

And this is what NIST did – presented a conclusion which their own results found less likely, i.e. concluded collapse would occur (with additional assistance from manual inputs to the model) when their own results found a greater range (also not reliant on tweaking the model) where collapse would not occur. It’s really no different to using hand-picked statistics to ‘prove’ a case, massaging the accounts or god forbid, presenting selective WMD intelligence to government and the public to support a war in Iraq. It’s not that any of it is correct or right, it’s that the politics of the situation demands it.

In the end, so far as it affects the immediate political power balance, perhaps you are right, “it really doesn't mean a lot unless it's peer-reviewed and accepted by their scientific peers”. But in raising awareness of the voting public which may one day change our outlook, that is not important.

You should never need 'could be' save for one situation, as a rebuttal of someone claiming 'it cannot be'. Which I don't think anyone has. Almost anything 'could be', so it's an empty statement.

In the repeated insistence on peer-reviewed papers and refusal to consider the “inescapable politics” involved, Yamato effectively claims that current mainstream academia ‘cannot be’ wrong. Also, where we have a reasonable ‘could be’ this, ‘could be’ that situation, that demands further investigation, which suits me.

Why did NIST not fully consider whether the tower collapses ‘could be’ the result of an unconventional demolition method? The success rate of their results could then be compared to that of their impact and fire results to determine which is most likely. Hint: according to NIST’s results, a 9/11-like impact and fire will cause a single building to collapse less than 50% of the time (even including additional manual inputs to induce that collapse), whereas I’m sure using the demolition method collapse would occur 100% of the time.

I should note, NIST actually did consider in their WTC7 report whether the collapse could have been a result of demolition. NIST wrote that off based on the use of a very loud explosive, RDX, claiming that no such noise volume could be heard??? Apparently their desire did not extend to testing an intentionally covert demolition.

Emphasis mine. Nobody said anything about what the motivations were why AE911 was initially formed nor why Gage turned away from employment, neither of those are required for a reason for lying to be about money. It 'could be' that Gage didn't realize how full of it his theory was until he got more attention but liked his truther job better by that point, amongst a zillion other possibilities. Do you know Gage? If not, why are you holding forth on how 'he might have done better', that's for him to decide not you to guess about. Nobody claimed he formed AE911 to get rich, but Gage is making money from it (and hardly a bad salary given what Raptor's provided), which is motivation to keep the organization going no matter what; "there is no doubt that the argument is proven to be viable.", as you would say. Anyway, as far as your misunderstanding in case you missed it in what I quoted, the flow above is that buff claimed these 'objective experts' had no reason to lie, Raptor rebuts that by saying yes Gage does have reason to lie, money, and you falsely say that the his accusation is slander. It's not an accusation, it's a valid,and now evidenced thanks to Raptor's later post, rebuttal to what he exactly quoted from buff; money is a well-established reason to lie, it's motive. So it's not slander, it's definitely not an ad hom, it's a direct and valid rebuttal to what he disputed.

What you call Raptor’s, “direct and valid rebuttal” failed in the first place since the ‘objective experts’ referred to do not translate to ‘Richard Gage’. In other words, an attempt was made to ignore thousands of ‘objective experts’ by cherry-picking and making an unproven claim about ‘Richard Gage’. That is not a rebuttal, it’s avoidance.

I find my response to RaptorBites and accusation of slander (dictionary definition ;)) justified given his opening, “Yes, they have a reason to lie. It's about money” which suggests fact rather than opinion. Yes it is an unproven accusation – hey perhaps Gage is so rich he could retire, but he doesn’t, which would dispute the accusation.

I have corresponded with Gage (mildly criticising him, for the record) but no I don’t know him personally. I said he might have done better setting up a business because then he could reap the dividends of any profit, rather than a non-profit organisation where he cannot. And that is another quite legitimate ‘could be’ guess I can make to refute RaptorBites’ apparent statement of fact.

In all, perhaps there is no reason for Gage (not to forget the other thousands of experts) to lie and there is no money motive at all. Are they all getting stinking rich? Do they need the money? What are their values? Perhaps the truth is a greater motive? Is money in following this particular pursuit a motive at all? Could more actually be earned putting time into other ventures? We don’t know any of this.

Really the same argument could be made to claim that UNICEF, the Red Cross or the WWF don’t believe in their cause and are just doing it for the money.

1. RaptorBites rebuttal failed.

2. My response in defending Gage was justified.

3. Your attempts to pick holes in my standards have been unsuccessful.

4. You have yet to rebut existence of the political climate which may affect current mainstream academia.

Do you have anything else to discuss?

Edited by Q24

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs

Do you have anything else to discuss?

Yes.

1. Please keep discussions on the threads where they belong, eg my alleged 'slander'. (Slander?? - perhaps you should look that word up... or now pretend it was just a joke.. hahah) And either report the comments or take legal action (for defamation or libel, I'd suggest) rather than whine on thread.

2. Where to now? The 911 truther movement has no traction whatsoever in the mainstream, and I'd venture to suggest that impotence is just getting worse. Do you disagree - if so, what pointers would you cite, other than a handwave to 'increasing awareness' or perhaps some poll on a conspiracy site..?

So what would you suggest next, other than more posts on forums?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Zaphod222

The troother movement has decided to pick one out of thousands of ongoing jihadist terror attacks, and declare that it is is one monstrous and insanely complicated government conspiracy.

The attack itself was quite spectacular in its result, but not particularly sophisticated. And certainly not unique -- in 1993, islamic jihadis had already tried to blow up the World Trade Center. They only managed to shake the building at the time. If they had succeeded, the result would have looked pretty much the same.

So what exactly are the troothers demonstrating, other than an embarrassing ignorance about history and politics?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q24

1. Please keep discussions on the threads where they belong, eg my alleged 'slander'. (Slander?? - perhaps you should look that word up... or now pretend it was just a joke.. hahah) And either report the comments or take legal action (for defamation or libel, I'd suggest) rather than whine on thread.

Please read again from post #2468. It is nothing to do with you. Not sure where you got that idea.

2. Where to now? The 911 truther movement has no traction whatsoever in the mainstream, and I'd venture to suggest that impotence is just getting worse. Do you disagree - if so, what pointers would you cite, other than a handwave to 'increasing awareness' or perhaps some poll on a conspiracy site..?

I don’t need to ‘handwave’. I have been keeping track of AE911T professional membership figures: -

Jun 20th, 13 – 1,941

Oct 10th, 12 – 1,724

Jul 7th, 09 - 717

May 31st, 09 – 671

Apr 29th, 09 – 643

Mar 1st, 09 – 600+

Aug 17th, 08 – 428

Aug 3rd, 08 – 418

Jul 29th, 08 – 400+

May 14th, 08 – 380

May 8th, 08 – 360+

Apr 26th, 08 – 300+

Jan 5th, 08 – 233

The number of professional supporters for a new investigation is clearly on the rise.

The public support seen in polls for a 9/11 false flag appears to fluctuate but always remains considerable.

These figures certainly do not support your claim of “impotence” or “no traction”.

So what would you suggest next, other than more posts on forums?

For me I think more posts to sustain public awareness will do for now, and I have a confidence that people will become ever more receptive the further from the event we move. 9/11 truth needs a platform/audience for the rising number of professional supporters to reach, right? Then in future we will see what happens.

  • Like 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Babe Ruth

Which some of us are still waiting for you to present...while most of us have clearly abandoned any form of hope for you.

You are unable to perceive the evidence RB, to interpret it in a rational manner. It's there. Like a person who cannot appreciate what the color green is because he is color blind, or like the human who cannot hear what a dog hears or smell what he smells, you are simply unable to discern the evidence.

Just like TWA800, the evidence is there, but some people are unable to see it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Babe Ruth

9-11 truthers are an insult to our intelligence. Nuff said.

Those who believe the official story are a monument to our gullibility and cognitive dissonance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Babe Ruth

Please read again from post #2468. It is nothing to do with you. Not sure where you got that idea.

I don’t need to ‘handwave’. I have been keeping track of AE911T professional membership figures: -

Jun 20th, 13 – 1,941

Oct 10th, 12 – 1,724

Jul 7th, 09 - 717

May 31st, 09 – 671

Apr 29th, 09 – 643

Mar 1st, 09 – 600+

Aug 17th, 08 – 428

Aug 3rd, 08 – 418

Jul 29th, 08 – 400+

May 14th, 08 – 380

May 8th, 08 – 360+

Apr 26th, 08 – 300+

Jan 5th, 08 – 233

The number of professional supporters for a new investigation is clearly on the rise.

The public support seen in polls for a 9/11 false flag appears to fluctuate but always remains considerable.

These figures certainly do not support your claim of “impotence” or “no traction”.

For me I think more posts to sustain public awareness will do for now, and I have a confidence that people will become ever more receptive the further from the event we move. 9/11 truth needs a platform/audience for the rising number of professional supporters to reach, right? Then in future we will see what happens.

It sounds like you are assuming that somebody in the government somewhere actually wants the truth to be found.

That is a poor assumption.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ChrLzs
It is nothing to do with you. Not sure where you got that idea

Short term memory issues? You NAMED me as 'slandering' you here on post #2475, where you stated:

Yes, slander as in when Chrlzs claimed I disparaged academia in everyday application

...and now you say it has nothing to do with me?????

Plus, I did NOT raise that issue on this thread, it was actually over here. Once again, you can't even remember what/where you post, let alone get your facts straight...

May I expect an apology?

And as for your 'measure of success', you honestly think self-proclaimed 'professionals' joining a website over time means anything? Deity save us... But thanks for showing what you accept as proof/evidence.

.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens

What you call Raptor’s, “direct and valid rebuttal” failed in the first place since the ‘objective experts’ referred to do not translate to ‘Richard Gage’. In other words, an attempt was made to ignore thousands of ‘objective experts’ by cherry-picking and making an unproven claim about ‘Richard Gage’. That is not a rebuttal, it’s avoidance.

I find my response to RaptorBites and accusation of slander (dictionary definition ;)) justified given his opening, “Yes, they have a reason to lie. It's about money” which suggests fact rather than opinion. Yes it is an unproven accusation – hey perhaps Gage is so rich he could retire, but he doesn’t, which would dispute the accusation.

You are altering your complaint, your slandering of Raptor by accusing him of slander mentioned nothing about Gage's situation not being representative of your thousands of 'experts'. Let me spoon feed it to you since either your defense mechanisms are kicking in or you need some coffee. It is a fact that Gage has reason or motive to lie, he is compensated for his truther efforts and this appears to be his only income. Similarly it is a fact that every spouse who has a sizable life insurance policy on their spouse has motive to off them. This does not necessarily mean it is a fact that Gage is lying because he wants/needs money, but contrary to what buff stated which is what Raptor quoted and responded to, Gage at least certainly has reason or motive to. Unless you think Gage isn't an expert, that works too.

I have corresponded with Gage (mildly criticising him, for the record) but no I don’t know him personally. I said he might have done better setting up a business because then he could reap the dividends of any profit, rather than a non-profit organisation where he cannot. And that is another quite legitimate ‘could be’ guess I can make to refute RaptorBites’ apparent statement of fact.

You seem to be viewing this very myopically assuming that everyone prioritizes wealth over other considerations. Maybe Gage actually enjoys trutherism more than his other opportunities, I wouldn't be surprised if his truther 'work' is easier than being an architect, etc.

Really the same argument could be made to claim that UNICEF, the Red Cross or the WWF don’t believe in their cause and are just doing it for the money.

Are any of them lying? Those are organizations, not specific people; organizations don't really have the capability to 'believe'. I'm sure there are members of each of those organizations that are doing it for the money, so? Does that counter something that's been said?

1. RaptorBites rebuttal failed.

2. My response in defending Gage was justified.

3. Your attempts to pick holes in my standards have been unsuccessful.

4. You have yet to rebut existence of the political climate which may affect current mainstream academia.

1 and 2, see above concerning your misreading/ignoring of the context of the discussion.

3, ha, you mean pick holes in your various 'standards'?

4, what's to rebut? 'The political climate 'may' affect current academia' is rebutted by 'the political climate may not affect current academia to any relevant degree on this topic'. Provide evidence that the far greater number of experts who don't buy the WTC demolition theory are all affected by this climate to the point they need to be for your argument to have any traction. Why are you discounting thousands of acknowledged experts in the science under discussion? I already have read the unconvincing excuses why you discount the fame and fortune that would come to anyone who could demonstrate scientifically that the WTC was likely demolished. Anybody can do what your 'experts' are 'doing', it's already been done for decades concerning evolution. Since they really haven't produced scientifically sound (as judged by people with relevant expertise, not as judged by non-expert Q24), there really isn't anything to discount.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Q24

Short term memory issues? You NAMED me as 'slandering' you here on post #2475, where you stated:

...and now you say it has nothing to do with me?????

Plus, I did NOT raise that issue on this thread, it was actually over here. Once again, you can't even remember what/where you post, let alone get your facts straight...

May I expect an apology?

That was a tongue in cheek response I made to Liquid Gardens who introduced a comment I made to you as part of the discussion on the other thread – talk to him about it. The discussion here has actually centred on the claim made by RaptorBites which I responded to in post #2468 and is nothing to do with your comments on the other thread – again, talk to Liquid Gardens who raised it and confused the issue. I have corrected him myself since. You needn’t expect an apology, especially since you couldn’t manage to quote the specific one-off response you were responding to in your previous post, but I’ll certainly rescind my one comment, “Not sure where you got that idea”. With that in mind, I will quickly address your complaint...

So far as reporting the comments or taking legal action which you suggested, again that is another overreaction from you. I’m quite happy just to point out where I think anyone has been slandered. The dictionary definition can simply mean, “to make false statement about someone” which is how I’m using it.

And as for your 'measure of success', you honestly think self-proclaimed 'professionals' joining a website over time means anything? Deity save us... But thanks for showing what you accept as proof/evidence.

It means exactly what I said, that your claim, “a handwave to 'increasing awareness'”, is incorrect, i.e. the increasing awareness is evident in the rising membership of AE911T. Also judging by the above, you don’t seem able to differentiate between “self-proclaimed” and “qualified” professionals. I don’t think I’ll waste anymore time with your over the top, thoughtless or fallacious responses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.