Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

[bill smith]

Maybe bill smith after his long absence can explain how not a single person I know in my academic years in college came to believe in the controlled demolition fraud despite the topic coming up several times,

No disrespect Grizzly but we have only your word for that. Before you rewrote this post you mentioned one person in your college who espoused controlled demolition. It doesn't raise the confidence level I'm afraid.

 

[Clayton Moore]

Maybe bill smith after his long absence can explain how not a single person I know in my academic years in college came to believe in the controlled demolition fraud despite the topic coming up several times,

From your tone here I doubt anyone needs/wants the grief being a "truther" in your company would bring.

 

[NoahFence]

From your tone here I doubt anyone needs/wants the grief being a "truther" in your company would bring.

Clayton - you didn't get the memo....

"Truther" is now a person who who believes terrorists hijacked aircraft and hit 3 of 4 targets, causing the total collapse of a couple of buildings, the partial collapse of some, and a hole in a field in Pennsylvania.

All others are the opposite of truthers.....



liars.

 

[uke2se]

How many architects and engineers have heard his presentations? Where do you get this number "90%"? You do understand now that the RIBA conference wasn't attended by RIBA members, with the exception of the person who leased the premises?

Bill, I'd like an answer please.

 

[bill smith]

Bill, I'd like an answer please.

Over the years probably thousands of architects and engineers have seen Richard Gage's presentations . He has taken in the last year or two to asking for a show of hands before and after his presentations to judge how effective he has been, Below is a table from his recent series in Europe. It speaks for itself.

Cumulative results by show of hands before and after Richard Gage's
june 2011 presentations in Amsterdam,Rotterdam,Bristol,London,Cork
Dublin and Dundalk. 1017 attendees total.

Totals: before : after
I Believe fires brought down the buildings 47 : 2
I am Unsure 148 : 64
I Believe in explosive Controlled Demolition 747 : 951

http://www2.ae911truth.org/speakings.php

Result: More than 95% of attendees now believe in the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers and WTC7 on 9/11. More than 100 architects and engineers attended.

 

[leftysergeant]

Cumulative results by show of hands before and after Richard Gage's
june 2011 presentations in Amsterdam,Rotterdam,Bristol,London,Cork
Dublin and Dundalk. 1017 attendees total.

Totals: before : after
I Believe fires brought down the buildings 47 : 2
I am Unsure 148 : 64
I Believe in explosive Controlled Demolition 747 : 951

http://www2.ae911truth.org/speakings.php

Result: More than 95% of attendees now believe in the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers and WTC7 on 9/11. More than 100 architects and engineers attended.

So, assuming that the little turd did not lie about the totals, nor attendees about their credentials, he had to visit three countries to find about seventy engineers who thought he did not have his brain leaking out his ears.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

No disrespect Grizzly but we have only your word for that.

Whether you believe in my little anecdote or not is very little of my concern. Gage doesn't have any concept of how to do thoughtful research in his own field of study, that much is obvious. His poll numbers you cite, are at best dubious, at worst outright leading questions. So not only is he an absolute incompetent in his own own field he's also manipulating his polling figures, brilliant.

I've said before... "truth" shouldn't need steroids to be "plausible," yet your lot seems to want it on those

Before you rewrote this post you mentioned one person in your college who espoused controlled demolition.

No, I wrote that the subject of the WTC collapses had come up several times during the course of my student career. Mostly as a subject of engineering concerns raised from their collapse.

 

[bill smith]

So, assuming that the little turd did not lie about the totals, nor attendees about their credentials, he had to visit three countries to find about seventy engineers who thought he did not have his brain leaking out his ears.

Where do you get off calling him a 'little turd' Sarge ? He is a very sincere,dedicated and highly qualified researcher into what is probably the crime of the century. He is in simple terms a very nice man who is outraged and has put his future on the line for America and the truth. You can live the lie if you want but thank God for people like Richard Gage

 

[bill smith]

Whether you believe in my little anecdote or not is very little of my concern. Gage doesn't have any concept of how to do thoughtful research in his own field of study, that much is obvious. His poll numbers you cite, are at best dubious, at worst outright leading questions. So not only is he an absolute incompetent in his own own field he's also manipulating his polling figures, brilliant.

I've said before... "truth" shouldn't need steroids to be "plausible," yet your lot seems to want it on those


No, I wrote that the subject of the WTC collapses had come up several times during the course of my student career. Mostly as a subject of engineering concerns raised from their collapse.

Why don't YOU write the three questions that Richard Gage should ask at his presentations and then we can analyse them ?

 

[uke2se]

Over the years probably thousands of architects and engineers have seen Richard Gage's presentations . He has taken in the last year or two to asking for a show of hands before and after his presentations to judge how effective he has been, Below is a table from his recent series in Europe. It speaks for itself.

Cumulative results by show of hands before and after Richard Gage's
june 2011 presentations in Amsterdam,Rotterdam,Bristol,London,Cork
Dublin and Dundalk. 1017 attendees total.

Totals: before : after
I Believe fires brought down the buildings 47 : 2
I am Unsure 148 : 64
I Believe in explosive Controlled Demolition 747 : 951

http://www2.ae911truth.org/speakings.php

Result: More than 95% of attendees now believe in the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers and WTC7 on 9/11. More than 100 architects and engineers attended.

Where did he get the number 100 architects or engineers? Did he ask them for credentials? How do you know that the people who identified themselves as architects or engineers didn't believe in controlled demolition before hearing Gage's speech, thus rendering the assertion that his speech swayed them incorrect? If that many architects and engineers have been persuaded by Gage, "thousands" as you say, how come he only has roughly 1500 people signed on his petition?

 

[twinstead]

The people who don't see Gage don't even know THREE freaking buildings collapsed on 9/11. That's your MSM playing hide the 9/11 for you.

Nobody I know doesn't know WTC7 collapsed, and most of them learned about it from the MSM.

 

[bill smith]

Where did he get the number 100 architects or engineers? Did he ask them for credentials? How do you know that the people who identified themselves as architects or engineers didn't believe in controlled demolition before hearing Gage's speech, thus rendering the assertion that his speech swayed them incorrect? If that many architects and engineers have been persuaded by Gage, "thousands" as you say, how come he only has roughly 1500 people signed on his petition?

This part of a quote from Mike Rivero should explain it:-

''...To take action in the face of a corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one’s self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all.''

 

[Dog Town]

Nobody I know doesn't know WTC7 collapsed, and most of them learned about it from the MSM.

Funny twoofers thinking MSM said nothing. The same MSM that blew it, and called its collapse early!

 

[uke2se]

This part of a quote from Mike Rivero should explain it:-


''...To take action in the face of a corrupt government entails risks of harm to life and loved ones. To choose to do nothing is to surrender one’s self-image of standing for principles. Most people do not have the courage to face that choice. Hence, most propaganda is not designed to fool the critical thinker but only to give moral cowards an excuse not to think at all.''

No, that doesn't explain it at all. Once again:

• Where did he get the number 100 architects or engineers? Did he ask them for credentials?
  
• How do you know that the people who identified themselves as architects or engineers didn't believe in controlled demolition before hearing Gage's speech, thus rendering the assertion that his speech swayed them incorrect?
  
• If that many architects and engineers have been persuaded by Gage, "thousands" as you say, how come he only has roughly 1500 people signed on his petition?

 

[Craig4]

From your tone here I doubt anyone needs/wants the grief being a "truther" in your company would bring.

Considering the exceptionally poor "work" done by the irrational fringe who believes in controlled detonations, vicsims and high energy weapons I don't see it as a bad thing that there's a social consequence for these beliefs. This was a national tragedy and to treat it with the contempt intentional or otherwise that this "truth movement" does should carry a price.

 

[Cl1mh4224rd]

The people who don't see Gage don't even know THREE freaking buildings collapsed on 9/11. That's your MSM playing hide the 9/11 for you.

I thought one of the pieces of evidence that 9/11 was an inside job was that the BBC reported the collapse of WTC7 early.

Schrödinger's conspiracy: any given detail of the alleged conspiracy is both critically important and utterly irrelevant. Which of those properties it possesses is unknown until an argument concerning that detail is made by a conspiracy theorist. Additionally, these details can be "put back in the box", at which point it regains its indeterminate state.

 

[bill smith]

No, that doesn't explain it at all. Once again:

• Where did he get the number 100 architects or engineers? Did he ask them for credentials?
  
• How do you know that the people who identified themselves as architects or engineers didn't believe in controlled demolition before hearing Gage's speech, thus rendering the assertion that his speech swayed them incorrect?
  
• If that many architects and engineers have been persuaded by Gage, "thousands" as you say, how come he only has roughly 1500 people signed on his petition?

Read the link I provided for his count of engineers and architects. I guess he took them at their word in many cases. From the numbers you can see that many people believed in controlled demolition prior to the presentation but the RISE from 747 to 951 believers (out of a total of 1017 attendees) is extremely telling. Of 1017 attendees only 66 do not positively believe in controlled demolition of which 64 are 'unsure' with only 2 people actively believing the government story that 'fire brought down the buildiings' Less than 0.02%.

 

[uke2se]

Read the link I provided for his count of engineers and architects. I guess he took them at their word in many cases.

So, no actual proof that any architects or engineers attended then.

From the numbers you can see that many people believed in controlled demolition prior to the presentation but the RISE from 747 to 951 believers (out of a total of 1017 attendees) is extremely telling. Of 1017 attendees only 66 do not positively believe in controlled demolition of which 64 are 'unsure' with only 2 people actively believing the government story that 'fire brought down the buildiings' Less than 0.02%.

No, it's not telling, especially pertaining to your assertion that 90% of architects and engineers that listen to Gage speak are swayed by his argument into belief in controlled demolition. For that argument to work, you would have to first prove that the people who Gage claimed - or who themselves claimed - to be architects and engineers actually were.

Secondly you would have to prove that all of the supposed architects and engineers were among the people who changed their minds. Otherwise your argument fails.

Third, it is interesting to note that the numbers you posted don't add up.

Totals: before : after
I Believe fires brought down the buildings 47 : 2
I am Unsure 148 : 64
I Believe in explosive Controlled Demolition 747 : 951

Now, 47 + 148 + 747 = 942 while 2 + 64 + 951 = 1017

Why were there fewer people in the before column than in the after column?

 

[beachnut]

Over the years probably thousands of architects and engineers have seen Richard Gage's presentations . He has taken in the last year or two to asking for a show of hands before and after his presentations to judge how effective he has been, Below is a table from his recent series in Europe. It speaks for itself.

Cumulative results by show of hands before and after Richard Gage's
june 2011 presentations in Amsterdam,Rotterdam,Bristol,London,Cork
Dublin and Dundalk. 1017 attendees total.

Totals: before : after
I Believe fires brought down the buildings 47 : 2
I am Unsure 148 : 64
I Believe in explosive Controlled Demolition 747 : 951

http://www2.ae911truth.org/speakings.php

Result: More than 95% of attendees now believe in the controlled demolition of the Twin Towers and WTC7 on 9/11. More than 100 architects and engineers attended.

Gage attracts people that can't think for themselves and can't figure out 911 after failing for 10 years to figure it out. Gage spreads delusions and you discovered 0.01 percent of all engineers are fooled by Gage; a rate less than mental illness.
The people who agree with Gage believe in silent explosives? This is sad so many people, even if they are 0.01 percent of all engineers, are idiots and fail to see Gage is a fraud. Good work exposing the failure of Gage.

 

[Craig4]

Read the link I provided for his count of engineers and architects. I guess he took them at their word in many cases. From the numbers you can see that many people believed in controlled demolition prior to the presentation but the RISE from 747 to 951 believers (out of a total of 1017 attendees) is extremely telling. Of 1017 attendees only 66 do not positively believe in controlled demolition of which 64 are 'unsure' with only 2 people actively believing the government story that 'fire brought down the buildiings' Less than 0.02%.

Why did Gage choose that particular facility to lease for the lecture?