in-progress, appropriately named truther site
- Thread starter Bitca
- Start date
Thank you for the links.
Gage's lies prove he is a dumbed down charlatan; if he is not a charlatan, his dumber than dirt and believes his own claims - oops, he could be a unknowing charlatan.
Do you have evidence for his lie of CD? No. All DRG 9/11 stuff is BS, and you can't prove otherwise.
Ape of Good Hope
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2011
- Messages
- 1,502
Strictly speaking it's more like 3/12
If it wasn't for his health problems I imagine there would be 5 or 6 more on the list by now.
Last edited:
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
Thanks - interesting - buuut: These are on the domain of Barry Krusch, with no indication that DRG himself authorized this publication. The books aren't even linked from the http://www.krusch.com homepage
I was expecting you'd show me that DRG is giving his material out for free rather than seeking income from the sale of books.
I just skimmed the WTC7 book. Dedicated to Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan - the most notorious liars of the TM - and Niels Harrit, the most deluded scientist they have.
Didn't see anything that hasn't already been debunked, but several things that are irrelevant or misrepresented.
It wasn't for several months!
I don't believe that this is true.
Not really - the website is pretty disorganized in that regard, and I think "BM" has a few slants added that Gage had not in his presentations previously.
I understand that - they are asking for money so they can pay salaries and travel amenities.
I don't claim that, but he is selling woo for a living and enjoys the applause - that is the definition of a charlatan: "A charlatan ... is a person practising quackery or some similar confidence trick in order to obtain money, fame or other advantages via some form of pretense or deception."
No. It is full to the brim with lies, deceptions, misrepresentations, false logic and irrelevancies blown out of proportions.
If anything, it warrants an investigation into to its eligibility for tax-exempt status.
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,039
Thanks - interesting - buuut: These are on the domain of Barry Krusch, with no indication that DRG himself authorized this publication. The books aren't even linked from the http://www.krusch.com homepage
I was expecting you'd show me that DRG is giving his material out for free rather than seeking income from the sale of books.
I just skimmed the WTC7 book. Dedicated to Steven Jones and Kevin Ryan - the most notorious liars of the TM - and Niels Harrit, the most deluded scientist they have.
Didn't see anything that hasn't already been debunked, but several things that are irrelevant or misrepresented.
It wasn't for several months!
I don't believe that this is true.
Not really - the website is pretty disorganized in that regard, and I think "BM" has a few slants added that Gage had not in his presentations previously.
I understand that - they are asking for money so they can pay salaries and travel amenities.
I don't claim that, but he is selling woo for a living and enjoys the applause - that is the definition of a charlatan: "A charlatan ... is a person practising quackery or some similar confidence trick in order to obtain money, fame or other advantages via some form of pretense or deception."
No. It is full to the brim with lies, deceptions, misrepresentations, false logic and irrelevancies blown out of proportions.
If anything, it warrants an investigation into to its eligibility for tax-exempt status.
Most of the evidence Richard Gage provides in his average presentation, to some extent, are legitimate reasons for an arson investigation. I disagree with some.
IMO it's silly not to have an investigation into inside job. In fact, IMO all catalyzing terrorist incidents should have an investigation into possible cover-up and inside job.
Last edited:
ProBonoShill
Master Poster
- Joined
- May 17, 2010
- Messages
- 2,329
No they aren't, Gage is a liar scamming the gullible out of money.
There was an investigation, in fact it was the largest in the history of planet earth. If you can't comprehend the outcome that's your problem.
Why should all terrorist incidents be investigated for being an inside job?
Was the London bombing an inside job? How about the Boston Marathon? The Paris bombings? What about all the thwarted attacks, were they just inside jobs that went wrong?
Last edited:
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,039
You know what, you're absolutely right. He's tricking the gullible into thinking the controlled demolition hypothesis extends to a bald gymnasium architect reciting rehearsed talking points. There are actually a few notable recent peer-reviewed papers he should point out more.
The same tired one-liner! What investigation? No insider foul play in the destruction of the WTC was investigated, even though it should have. NIST never gave their own theory for the Twin Tower collapses, Their WTC 7 report is debunked, Bazant is debunked, Nordenson's WTC 7 analysis is debunked, and people who say it might've been a demolition are creating peer-reviewed papers.
I would say that it depends on how major the tragedy is, but then again anybody could twist that meaning into anything they want, so yes, all major terrorist incidents should be investigated for possible coverup and inside job.
Who's to say what is and isn't "thwarted" or "went wrong"? There is some evidence that the Murrah Building bombing in 1995 was supposed to be even more destructive than it was, possibly intended to completely destroy the entire building.
Last edited:
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Like who?
ProBonoShill
Master Poster
- Joined
- May 17, 2010
- Messages
- 2,329
Really? Which ones?
The biggest criminal investigation in the history of the planet. That one.
Why would they investigate that???? No one died? I asked you before why would they would wait 7 hours to collapse a building and save everyone's lives when they could've done it much earlier and killed hundreds of people? Are you going to answer this time?
What is the NIST tasked with? Please answer.
Please explain in detail how any of the above is debunked? Use the search function and find the appropriate threads, we can discuss there.
Why? Do you think just because you're paranoid and delusional precious resources should be wasted on fruitless investigations? Who is conducting these investigations. Who is paying for all of this?
The law enforcement agencies around the world that's who. Were all the prevented attacks inside jobs or not? Answer the questions and stop dodging.
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,039
http://www.challengejournal.com/index.php/cjsmec/article/view/50 (read for free on page)
http://www.challengejournal.com/index.php/cjsmec/article/view/36 (read for free on page)
http://prs.sagepub.com/content/4/2/117.abstract (read for free here)
Last edited:
Oystein
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2009
- Messages
- 18,903
Stupid nonsense. *********** 767s flew into the towers with 10,000 gallons of accelerant. That's your arson right there. Open your eyes and your mind!
All of Gage's arguments are deceptive nonsense.
I am glad you so openly admit that you don't want investigations to go where the evidence leads but to where your prejudice leads you.
I am also glad you completely abandoned the fact that DRG and Gage are making money with their charlatanery. I think you accepted this fact eventually.
Last edited:
ozeco41
Philosopher
In strict legal pedantry you are partially correct.
The "Most" is wrong - but "Some" could be a partial truth.
The real issue - from a legal perspective - is weight and status of evidence. The fact that a building had a fire is evidence which goes on the side of the balance saying "could be arson". BUT the other side of the balance is far too heavily loaded with reality.
The reality of course - whether in a legal setting or talking to intelligent lay persons on the internet - is that there is simply overwhelming evidence for the primary reasons that an arson investigation would be conducted. Those are to (a) determine the cause of the fire and (b) the probable identity of the perpetrators. The first was known from the moment the events happened and preliminary investigation confirmed the second.
Can you identify any valid reason for more investigation into arson - other than satisfying the whims of a minority lobby group which is both dishonest and cannot formulate a valid reason for further investigation?
Whilst you persist in partial truth lies by innuendo and other debating tricks you will not persuade anyone here - let alone build a legitimate argument for further investigation.
Agreed. And it happened in accordance with due process within the relevant jurisdictions of a country which operates under rule of law and the provisions of a Constitution.
Whatever basis there may be for further investigation into mis/mal/nonfeasance by US persons or agencies you can be assured that such investigation will not happen whilst ever dishonest minority groups such as AE911 premise their call for further investigation on the easily proven lies about CD at WTC.
IF truthers drop the lies about those major technical events - CD at WTC, not the plane at Pentagon and shoot down at Shanksville - there could be a basis for additional investigation. However I doubt that there is sufficient weight of evidence to garner the political critical mass for such a process.
But present a politician with a demand that s/he investigate the behaviour of politicians based on lies such as CD at WTC and most politicians would show you the door.
Get the truth movement to clean up its act and there may be a chance. I doubt it would work because the issues are essentially dead ...but it will not go forward hampered by technical lies.
Personally I have zero doubt that there were lots of bits of LIHOOI, LIHOP and probably MIHOP at both agency and individual person level. Both "sides" of the debate have consistently failed to recognise the structure of such behaviours - most treating it a single control single homogeneous process of MIHOP or LIHOP. Totally at odds with reality which could not be "one single thing" BUT had to include lots of little and medium sized "bits". You can bet money that lots of individuals under pressure were victims of LIHOOI and that some agencies out of inter-agency rivalry or agency "arse protection" would LIHOP - maybe even MIHOP - BITS of the overall picture.
Last edited:
ProBonoShill
Master Poster
- Joined
- May 17, 2010
- Messages
- 2,329
Do the authors of these papers believe in CD? Yes or No?
Why didn't you answer the rest of the questions?
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,039
"Believe"? The authors are skeptics. I don't think either of them except for Szamboti have come right out and said that they have no doubt the WTC was a CD.
"Our conclusion suggests that Newton’s laws of motion and energy conservation considerations would have had to have been violated to explain that building’s total collapse within a debris pile several storeys high."
"Based on the parametric study undertaken, our findings were that the fire-protected steel floor beam, identified as the initiator of the cascade of events that followed, could not have done so, virtually under any circumstance."
Those are fighting words around these parts.
I'm not entertaining the rest of the childish BS in this thread, using every foolish forum debating trick in the book. I do not "believe" in CD, but I do believe that inside job should be investigated and should have from day 1. I have already asked many genuinely good questions relating to the foreknowledge of WTC 7 in the other thread, and none of them were adequately answered. So, I know what responses to skip and ignore.
ozeco41
Philosopher
I took a very quick preliminary look at the three papers.
1) The first one is a collection of straw-man arguments including confusions as to which buildings it refers to and all the usual misunderstanding/misrepresentation of Bazant & Zhou. As usual with these sort of papers it would take a significant effort to parse, analyse and rebut/confirm the mass of confusions.
2) The second one pursues a single straw-man.
3) The third is one I have found interesting since it first appeared. It is the Szuladzinski, Szamboti and Johns paper which makes some interesting points. Two of them are:
(a) They assert that Bazant and Zhou got the quantification sums wrong by an order of about two times. On the basis of that error if proven the original assertions that "global collapse was inevitable" were based on
(b) The paper destroys one of the foundations of T Szamboti's infamous "Missing Jolt" (AKA "The Jolt that Never Could Be") - so once again we see T Sz self rebutting.
If anyone wants a serious review of any of those papers ask and I may spend an hour or two and summarise the key issues - right or wrong.
Last edited:
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,039
I took a very quick preliminary look at the three papers.
1) The first one is a collection of straw-man arguments including confusions as to which buildings it refers to and all the usual misunderstanding/misrepresentation of Bazant & Zhou. As usual with these sort of papers it would take a significant effort to parse, analyse and rebut/confirm the mass of confusions.
2) The second one pursues a single straw-man.
3) The third is one I have found interesting since it first appeared. It is the Szuladzinski, Szamboti and Johns paper which makes some interesting points. Two of them are:
(a) They assert that Bazant and Zhou got the quantification sums wrong by an order of about two times. On the basis of that error if proven the original assertions that "global collapse was inevitable" were based on false argument. BUT that is now of zero significance other than minor red face for some. We now know that progression was in fact inevitable for the Twins Towers based on understanding of the actual mechanism. So NIST was right but for the wrong reasons.
(b) The paper destroys one of the foundations of T Szamboti's infamous "Missing Jolt" (AKA "The Jolt that Never Could Be") - so once again we see T Sz self rebutting.
If anyone wants a serious review of any of those papers ask and I may spend an hour or two and summarise the key issues - right or wrong.
See if the Challenge journal takes rebuttal papers, or write the authors of the two papers to get answers.
ozeco41
Philosopher
Why?
My interest in 9/11 matters lies in explaining the engineering forensics of WTC collapse mechanisms to interested honest persons. Either in on-line forum discussions OR - occasionally - face to face.
There are dozens of wrong papers out there. From both "sides" of the great divide. Why should I waste effort rebutting them?
My only interest arises when someone in a forum such as this misuses or misunderstands the technical papers - or the paper is itself wrong. Either side BTW - there are more false explanations coming from the "debunker" or "official version favouring side" than from the truth movement. I've copped more flack in recent years from debunker side members who cannot even contemplate that Bazant may have made errors than from "Truthers".
If you post serious attempts as discussing the issues - referencing such papers - I am likely to give you a serious response. BUT not whilst you persist in trolling trickery. Try me. Make a serious reasoned argument for some significant point.
Try responding to my recent post #53 as a first step. I'm the closest you are likely to get to support for further investigation of political mis/mal/nonfeasance.
Last edited:
MicahJava
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jan 26, 2016
- Messages
- 3,039
I have posted links showing that the NFPA 921, on many occasions, eerily describes the case of the WTC destruction and that these descriptions are signs of foul play. Also, I have posted links showing that "people who think it might've been a demolition are creating peer-reviewed papers". That was my purpose.
You turn to an ex-Theology teacher as your engineering “expert”.
LMAO.
You just refuse to learn.
You “strongly disagree with him on most things”, but you cite his trashy books.
Wow.
Confused much?
“his WTC 7 book is his best”
LoL.
What, it’s “only” 95% wrong, as opposed to the others being 98% wrong?
That’s called “damned by faint praise.”
Wrong.
- He speaks outside of his field of expertise = Charlatan.
(He PROPERLY should lose his license for this.) - He throws the imprimatur of the AIA on everything he can … until he gets caught, again, & is forced to remove it = Charlatan.
- He refuses to bring his trash to real, independent experts (structural engineers) = Charlatan.
- He brings his trash to amateurs (college kids, architects, etc.) without first having it reviewed by real experts = Charlatan.
- He has 95% of his trash prepared by clueless amateurs (Sarns, Adam Taylor, Jonathan Cole, etc.) = Charlatan.
- He asks for donations at every opportunity = Charlatan.