• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

...Richard Gage destroyed by Kim Hill

To sum up Algerbra34 & the rest of the loons:

Paranoia can take a broad number of forms. Some people have classic persecutory paranoia, in which they believe that they are in danger from everyone else. Others might have litigious paranoia, in which they repeatedly attempt to sue people or threaten people with suit over perceived offenses, or they may suffer from reformatory paranoia, characterized by the belief that the patient needs to correct the behavior and beliefs of others. There are a number of other forms of paranoia, all of which revolve around a core belief which the patient believes is true, although it is not, and the symptoms of paranoia are usually similar, no matter what form it takes.

Distrust is the hallmark of paranoia. Someone who suffers from paranoia is very defensive, sometimes to the point of being aggressive, and may constantly question the motives of others. Even if people appear harmless on the surface, the paranoid patient believes that they are simply trying to lull the patient into a sense of complacency, and the patient will remain on guard as a result. Other symptoms of paranoia can include a sense of social isolation caused in part by the patient's defensive and suspicious behavior, and a lack of humor.

Paranoid patients are also hypersensitive. Casual comments or innocuous statements are perceived as personal attacks or insults by someone with paranoia, making extreme sensitivity one of the distinctive symptoms of paranoia, in addition to a diagnostic criterion. The onset of symptoms is usually gradual as the delusion becomes more deep-seated, and as the patient encounters opposition, concern, or confusion which reinforce the patient's beliefs that no one in the world is safe or trustworthy.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Algebra34 said:
The "criticisms" against all the different versions of official version and just the debunkers here alone are MAJOR.
Click to expand...

Huh? Make sense, please. The criticisms are all fact based, like I said. Go read them. Some are linked here. Here's a thread where LC: Final Cut is discussed. I see a post where the "$2.3 trillion" charge is shown as being a myth, I see a correction about a charge regarding FL93's evidence, I see a correction regarding LC:FC's error regarding a CVR. Those samples are all fact based. So are the other critiques.

The bottom line is that LC tries to make a point with fallacies and misrepresentations. That's been demonstrated.

Algebra34 said:
The one and only criteria debunkers have in endorsing any kind of information on 9/11 is just as long as it doesn't stray too far from the current official version whatever that might be at the time. Looking back I couldn't believe how the skeptics here got slapped back in line with the NIST WTC7 report. That was hilarious considering all the nonsense they were belligerently ranting for years. And that's just one aspect of the debunker ever evolving story.

You are welcome. Does that slap still sting?
Click to expand...

This is quite demonstrably incorrect. The criteria we have is that information must reflect reality. If you want to keep bringing up WTC 7, you'll just keep proving my point for me. Again, like I said before, when the study concluded that the diesel fires did in fact not have the impact that was initially thought, we were able to accept that. And that's not because the information came from the government, but because it was backed up factually. That's a perfect example of letting information shape your understanding of an event. And there are also aspects of how the fire affected the interior that was modified based on the compelling argument that was presented. They are accepted not because they come from the government, but because NIST publishes why they conclude what they do, and that conclusion can be seen as flowing naturally from principles of construction that are well known and validated. Their conclusions can be verified. And they track with what's known about how structures respond to fires. There's no need for the origin to enter the argument at all; the argument is accepted because it's based on observation and modeling from known principles.

Furthermore, your attempt to imply that information isn't trusted unless it's "official" is also a demonstrably false claim. Arup's/University of Edinburgh's info and the Worchester Polytechnic study are only two examples of information that does not come from a government source yet are readily accepted by all of us here. And the Arup/UofEdinburgh info even takes issue with NIST! Yet, you don't find anyone here ignoring it simply because it doesn't come from the US government. Your claim is hollow, and has no supporting evidence.

If your purpose is to advocate for the conspiratorial narrative, then you'd better start. So far, all you've been trying to do is insult and probe for responses. That's no way to be seen as a rational actor in all of this. On the contrary, it makes you look petty and childish. Bring evidence. Bring an argument. If you keep on thinking that you make headway with provocations, then you've lost the argument from the beginning because you do nothing but nitpick a body of work, and you fail to establish an alternate narrative. You don't accomplish anything that way. And you end up looking foolish in the end.
 
Yes.

QFT.

R.Mackey said:
What I find particularly amusing about this is the fact that the Truthers need to defend Gage's stupidity.

He talked a bunch of nonsense. So much so that Ms. Hill skewered him easily, despite not being particularly well versed in the subject. However, Truthers cannot acknowledge this.

Again, this is because the entire Truth Movement is built upon the perceived credibility of individuals. So whenever Gage says something really dumb, the Truthers can't admit it, can't say "yeah, that part makes no sense," etc., because nothing the guy says is independently verifiable. Therefore, calling into question anything he says means calling into question everything he says, at which point the Truth Movement implodes at free-fall speed.

This is the problem of pseudoscience. You've hitched your cart to an anchor. You have no choice but to follow your leaders, no matter how stupid a direction they go, or else to get off the bus entirely. It's inevitable that over time, you will talk yourselves further and further into odium and obscurity.

Such is not the case for science. Let's suppose, for sake of argument, Sir Steven Hawking professed a belief in ghosts with no evidentiary support whatsoever. This does not mean that his previous work suddenly becomes invalid. That's because his previous work can be replicated. In science, we would say that "Dr. Hawking made some brilliant contributions, but watch out for his kookery about ghosts," and that's all. It does nothing to the establishment, what we've learned, or what we know.

In the Truth Movement, since none of it is verifiable, there is nothing that survives this episode. Consequently, you haven't learned anything.

So, go right ahead, keep defending Gage to the death. You'd be much better served acknowledging that nearly all of what he said is obvious nonsense -- "black iron curtain" of media conspiracy indeed! -- but then, that would be a rational conclusion, and there's no reason to start now when you're doing so well, is there? ;)
Click to expand...
 
R.Mackey said:
Such is not the case for science. Let's suppose, for sake of argument, Sir Steven Hawking professed a belief in ghosts with no evidentiary support whatsoever. This does not mean that his previous work suddenly becomes invalid. That's because his previous work can be replicated. In science, we would say that "Dr. Hawking made some brilliant contributions, but watch out for his kookery about ghosts," and that's all. It does nothing to the establishment, what we've learned, or what we know.
Click to expand...

It's a good thing to. The whole "ether" nonsense would have set us back centuries, throwing the baby out with the bath water so to speak.
 
ElMondoHummus said:
If you want to keep bringing up WTC 7, you'll just keep proving my point for me. Again, like I said before, when the study concluded that the diesel fires did in fact not have the impact that was initially thought, we were able to accept that. And that's not because the information came from the government, but because it was backed up factually.
Click to expand...

When NIST's report finally came out, what facts emerged that weren't known before?
 
bardamu said:
When NIST's report finally came out, what facts emerged that weren't known before?
Click to expand...

I believe NIST went over an object bigger than WTC 7 that didn't collapse due to fire -- Homeland Insurgency's wife.
 
bardamu said:
When NIST's report finally came out, what facts emerged that weren't known before?
Click to expand...

I state two in my post and you still have to ask? For one, the role, or rather the lack thereof, of diesel fuel in the fires. And two, the special role the long truss spans held in the failures.

I'm sure others can elaborate on this, but those are two I'm aware of.
 
AJM8125 said:
I heard them also commentate that it was a small plane, a DC-9, a 727 and a 747. Which one was right Bill?
Click to expand...
Nah....I've noticed that different commentators say markedly different things. Do you remember the FOX reporter eyewitness who said that the plane had a blue logo, and no windows . There is tons more llike that. Maybe somebody wwill collate all the TV commentary and the witnesses they consult and see if it reveals anything. I think it will myself.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
Nah....I've noticed that different commentators say different things. Do you remember the FOX reporter eyewitness who said that the plane had a blue logo, and no windows . There is tons more llike that. Maybe somebody wwill collate all the TV commentary and see if it reveals anything. I think it will myself.
Click to expand...

there are a zillion pics and videos of the planes. they were commercial airliners.

uggg..
 
bardamu said:
http://www.911conspiracy.tv/9-11_TV_archive_-_1st_reports.html

NBC second segment at 04:50.
Click to expand...

The 2nd clip:

Shows how much you can depend on individual eyewitnesses, the resturant worker on the phone who said he heard the bang, looked up and saw part of the plane going into the building, impossible. I don't think it's uncommon for people to do that though and is possibly the cause of the conflicting reports from the pentagon.
 
Last edited:
just like how the maintenance guy in the tower says he felt a big bang before the plane hit. how the hell does he know when the plane hit??
 
parky76 said:
just like how the maintenance guy in the tower says he felt a big bang before the plane hit. how the hell does he know when the plane hit??
Click to expand...

Disinformation Parky, don't you recognise it when you see it ? There is plenty and plenty more. Remember .....too much information is more effective than too little from the perps point of view. It's a dead giveaway.
 
bill smith said:
Disinformation Parky, don't you recognise it when you see it ? There is plenty and plenty more. Remember .....too much information is more effective than too little from the perps point of view. It's a dead giveaway.
Click to expand...

u think Rodriguez..is disinfo??

who will you guys NOT label??????

i mean honestly, what's with the damn labels?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom