George 152
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2002
- Messages
- 5,012
Especially when you consider where he dragged it from
Richard Gage on CSPAN
- Thread starter Trojan
- Start date
Especially when you consider where he dragged it from
George 152
Philosopher
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2002
- Messages
- 5,012
He has an internet connection ???
Miragememories
Banned
Time to wake up and smell the coffee folks.
Quibbling over the expert count does nothing to change the validity of the message.
Quibbling over the expert count does nothing to change the validity of the message.
LSSBB
Devilish Dictionarian
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
No, He does have a validity for his high value contributors.
<everyone does know that before "truth" he was involved with his church finance committee>
ozeco41
Philosopher
ozeco41
Philosopher
Trojan
Muse
the message being that is it is a blatant appeal to authority? with no authority behind it?
It's hardly the first time. In fact, it's not even the first time someone's pointed this out to him.
Though you'd probably also break the metaphorical butter dish. Which Truthers conspicuously ignore.
Which he tries to pretend doesn't exist, IIRC. It's not on any official AE911T page, even though he still uses the demonstration.
SezMe
post-pre-born
Is that a verified figure? Does it continue to this day? Lordy, lordy, please tell me "no".
Bad news, true; lies earn Gage in the last year or prior, 500k/yr. The internet has helped selling lies into an industry to fleece the not so smart conspiracy theory enthusiasts, even on 911 as they mock the murdered of thousand supporting Richard the Liar Gage.
Gage took in 500k, let me look it up again; there is a web site for the tax forms of non-profits - IRS should add a liars tax, 75 percent or so ...
looking for 990s --- found some numbers ... http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=259583&page=16#635
The total revenue for ---
2007 FORM 990-EZ - $ 45,132
2008 FORM 990-EZ - $149,579
2009 FORM 990-EZ - $344,570
2010 FORM 990-EZ - $434,526
2011 FORM 990-EZ - $469,362
Gage went over 500,000 for 2012, I can't find the form right now, it is kind of depressing, an idiot can make money selling lies. Gage's private travel club for one. I wonder how many volunteers work thinking they can cash in...
Last edited:
funk de fino
Dreaming of unicorns
This is, unwittingly I suspect, the most sensible thing you have ever posted. It certainly doesn't change the message. The message is still garbage. No matter how many lies he tells about the amount of signatories.
CompusMentus
Waiting for the Worms
Animal
Master Poster
You do like to bring up the landscape architects a lot. There must be a lot of landscape architects on that list for you guys to talk about it as much as you do. Just how many are there? Hundreds? What's the ratio of landscape architects to structural or building architects? Surely, with all your various analyses of that list, you folks have this data.
For someone who doesn't take it seriously, you sure spend a lot of time conjecturing about it.
Last time I checked....out of the 2000+ signatures........there was a little over 200 LICENSED architects and 400+ LICENSED engineers.
There are approximately 90,000 licensed architects in the US. That 200 + is not even a pimple on a gnats ass.
I don't know the number of licensed engineers in the US, but am sure it is many times that of architects. Of those 400+ less than 25% were civil, and of the civil, a small fraction were actually structural engineers.
But go ahead and keep believing your fantasy.....it makes good entertainment.
Animal
Master Poster
Maybe you should tell that to dicky gage......he keeps bringing up the number as if it means something.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
Richard Gage is the one constantly bringing up the "expert count" as if it had anything to do with the message. And he's the one blatantly lying about how many experts allegedly agree with him. Since he makes more money the more people who believe in him, I think you should direct your helpful advice toward him. The "expert count" is very important to him, for reasons that to me seem very obvious.
As for the validity of the message, it's time for you guys to smell the sludge and quit trying to call it coffee. I calmly and systematically told you in another thread what the problems were with your message. You ignored everything I said, called me "pompous," and refused to talk to me. So I don't think you can really make a case that your critics are the ones evading discussion.
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
It's not even the first time I've pointed it out to him.
No analogy is perfect, otherwise it wouldn't be merely analogous.
The important point is that thermite has an almost exclusively thermal effect. Apply a lot of heat to steel in one place and it will eventually soften and melt. The actual explosives used in demolition don't melt steel; they cut it. Which is to say there's a thermal effect, but the dominant effect in a shaped demolition charge is mechanical -- the concentration of a powerful gas jet against the steel.
Effects of *thermite would be visibly different from mechanical failures, and any explosives would have detectable effects both in and out of the buildings. Hence the broken butter dish part of the metaphor; the secondary effects of the whatever that truthers just can't seem to address.
SpitfireIX
Philosopher
JayUtah
Penultimate Amazing
In my 15 or so years writing as a skeptic I've investigated a number of fringe theories and observed the approach taken by their proponents. A number of similarities have become apparent from theory to theory, and two of them are especially relevant to this thread.
First, conspiracy theorists grossly overstate the objective credibility of their claims. They are inclined to believe their theory is more credible to the general public (or even to subject-matter experts) than it is. On the one hand I believe this is due partly to the isolation that conspiracy theorists generally build around themselves, preferring to associate mostly only with their true believers. On the other hand I believe it is also due to their misconception and/or rejection of legitimate authority, which gives conspiracy theorists an underestimation of how confidently subject-matter experts are able to reject their claims on their face.
Second, conspiracy theorists presume that the only reason their theory is not widely accepted is because it is not widely known. That is, conspiracy theorists generally avoid the notion that there can be a well-reasoned disputation of their claims. Hence they tend to attribute disbelief among knowledgeable parties as ignorance of the claims and/or of the supporting sciences. They argue that affirmative agreement would be much more prevalent if the theories were more widely disseminated, and analogously that any one person who disagrees with the theory must do so only because he is uninformed about it.
These significantly address the degree to which Gage's claims are viewed and considered.
First, conspiracy theorists grossly overstate the objective credibility of their claims. They are inclined to believe their theory is more credible to the general public (or even to subject-matter experts) than it is. On the one hand I believe this is due partly to the isolation that conspiracy theorists generally build around themselves, preferring to associate mostly only with their true believers. On the other hand I believe it is also due to their misconception and/or rejection of legitimate authority, which gives conspiracy theorists an underestimation of how confidently subject-matter experts are able to reject their claims on their face.
Second, conspiracy theorists presume that the only reason their theory is not widely accepted is because it is not widely known. That is, conspiracy theorists generally avoid the notion that there can be a well-reasoned disputation of their claims. Hence they tend to attribute disbelief among knowledgeable parties as ignorance of the claims and/or of the supporting sciences. They argue that affirmative agreement would be much more prevalent if the theories were more widely disseminated, and analogously that any one person who disagrees with the theory must do so only because he is uninformed about it.
These significantly address the degree to which Gage's claims are viewed and considered.