Gage Back to His Incessant Lying.

DGM said:
Yes I do. The funniest part is how fast his "crew" came over to see what we wanted to ask when he "opened" the floor for questions.

cooperman: We have seen his show live.
Click to expand...

I'm just noticing the quote in your signature. It's what I've been saying: tuthers have given up attempting to argue for a win but are debating for a draw! And rehashing old minutia is all they have left to do this!
 
cantonear1968 said:
Would repeating "facts" not proven to be true, even if you believe them(open to debate), qualify as lies?
"pyroclastic flow"
"molten STEEL"
"pulverized in mid air"

So in these instances is Gage a liar or merely incompetent?
Click to expand...

Funny you should mention pyroclastic flows.

I watched a documentary yesterday that was non-conspiracy and was about the new wtc7 being built. Not only did they fail to show a video of the collapse when they discussed it but they said the collapse was caused by "debris from the wtc1 collapse hitting 7 with the force of a volcano". That is a direct quote,.

Is that the official story now?
 
cooperman said:
.... but they said the collapse was caused by "debris from the wtc1 collapse hitting 7 with the force of a volcano". That is a direct quote,.

Is that the official story now?
Click to expand...

How does "force of a volcano" prove a pyroclastic flow, in truther world?

But hey! I'm just asking questions!
 
cooperman said:
Funny you should mention pyroclastic flows.

I watched a documentary yesterday that was non-conspiracy and was about the new wtc7 being built. Not only did they fail to show a video of the collapse when they discussed it but they said the collapse was caused by "debris from the wtc1 collapse hitting 7 with the force of a volcano". That is a direct quote,.

Is that the official story now?
Click to expand...

What does that have to do with pyroclastic flows?

And, no. The NIST report documents what is the commonly accepted narrative. If you have evidence that contradicts the NIST report, I suggest you take it up with NIST.
 
cooperman said:
Funny you should mention pyroclastic flows.

I watched a documentary yesterday that was non-conspiracy and was about the new wtc7 being built. Not only did they fail to show a video of the collapse when they discussed it but they said the collapse was caused by "debris from the wtc1 collapse hitting 7 with the force of a volcano". That is a direct quote,.

Is that the official story now?
Click to expand...

BTW, since you didn't mention the other 2, do you accept them as proof of Gage's deception and/or incompetence?
 
cantonear1968 said:
How does "force of a volcano" prove a pyroclastic flow, in truther world?

But hey! I'm just asking questions!
Click to expand...

The stupidity on this site never ceases to amaze me.

I DO NOT believe there was a pyroclastic flow. The point is that some proponents of the official story seem to be claiming that wtc1 hit 7 with the force of a volcano. It didn't, of course. They are lying, but then they do that a lot.

Reading the phrase pyroclastic flow just reminded me of the programme I had seen.
 
shows

Hi, How do you know the shows writers adhere to any idea of 911? Perhaps they were told "write a script" and went looking for data and found Mr Gages site and quoted him? Since they did not realize there is more then one version/interpretation they just wrote what they found.
I am pretty certain the majority of the world is unaware that there is even a debate still going on about 911
 
cooperman said:
The stupidity on this site never ceases to amaze me.

I DO NOT believe there was a pyroclastic flow. The point is that some proponents of the official story seem to be claiming that wtc1 hit 7 with the force of a volcano. It didn't, of course. They are lying, but then they do that a lot.

Reading the phrase pyroclastic flow just reminded me of the programme I had seen.
Click to expand...

You holler stupidity at this site, then post this drivel about how someone said something on a show you saw about the "force of a volcano" and you equate that as a change in the "official story" and use that to conclude that "they" are always lying...

WOW... But it's this sites stupidity that never ceases to amaze? :id:
 
cooperman said:
The stupidity on this site never ceases to amaze me.

I DO NOT believe there was a pyroclastic flow. The point is that some proponents of the official story seem to be claiming that wtc1 hit 7 with the force of a volcano. It didn't, of course. They are lying, but then they do that a lot.

Reading the phrase pyroclastic flow just reminded me of the programme I had seen.
Click to expand...

Could you name the programs, the channel they were on or any specifics.
 
cooperman said:
Can you name a classic characteristic of controlled demolition that wtc7 didn't exhibit?
Click to expand...

No Problem.

Lack of a SEQUENCE (repeated, roughly equal time between each) of many loud explosions just prior to collapse.

Lack of a SEQUENCE (see above) of many bright flashes from the windows etc...just prior to collapse.

Lack of conventional explosive (those used in classic CD) det cord or residue at the scene post collapse.

Lack of witnesses stating that there were people accessing the areas where the columns were on a regular basis to plant/prep the columns for take down.

TAM:)
 
cooperman said:
Many collapse videos have no soundtrack. The others are not guaranteed to pick up such a low frequency noise on an inbuilt microphone. No videos were taken from very close to the collapse. Eyewitnesses close to the collapse did describe loud cracks. One described it as like a clap of thunder and then the bottom caved out.
Click to expand...

BS. Not guaranteed...talk about lame. Is that the best rebuttal you have?

Given the truther propensity to take similes as factual, I guess you think thunder caused the collapse, right? I mean every time we try to convince people that the use of the word "explosion" could easily mean loud noise, you all freak out...yet now you try to convince us that a "clap of thunder" means explosives...oh my.

See my above list...refute it or not I do not care...you asked us to list them.

TAM:)
 
cooperman said:
I just noticed the thread title describes gage's lies as "incessant". So, where are they all? Can anyone list the lies?
Click to expand...

well he is nothing more then a David Ray Griffin Parrot with a diploma/degree, so count the hundreds of lies, or misrepresentations, or mistruths, or ommissions that DRG has produced, and you have a good estimate of Gages.

TAM:)
 
cooperman said:
Funny you should mention pyroclastic flows.

I watched a documentary yesterday that was non-conspiracy and was about the new wtc7 being built. Not only did they fail to show a video of the collapse when they discussed it but they said the collapse was caused by "debris from the wtc1 collapse hitting 7 with the force of a volcano". That is a direct quote,.

Is that the official story now?
Click to expand...

Can we add Hyperbole to the list of english terms you fail to understand?

1. Debris from wtc1 DID HIT wtc7.
2. The collapse was caused by fires that WERE CAUSED by the debris
3. They certainly did hit the building with tremendous force.
4. It is a documentary, not a scientific paper...HYPERBOLE for effect.

You fail...AGAIN.

TAM:)
 
T.A.M. said:
well he is nothing more then a David Ray Griffin Parrot with a diploma/degree, so count the hundreds of lies, or misrepresentations, or mistruths, or ommissions that DRG has produced, and you have a good estimate of Gages.

TAM:)
Click to expand...

Something tells me he already has the books.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom