• 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.

Merged Continuation - 9/11 CT subforum General Discussion Thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
95% of the general populace believe that bill smith's statistics are made up.
 
Last edited:
uke2se said:
So, no actual proof that any architects or engineers attended then.



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.



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

Why were there fewer people in the before column than in the after column?
Click to expand...
The figures are there in the link and I leave it to you to make any meaninggful correction.

Just lay it out in the same format and we can have another look.
 
bill smith said:
The figures are there in the link and I leave it to you to make any meaninggful correction.

Just lay it out in the same format and we can have another look.
Click to expand...

As we covered before, there's really no meaning to be found given that the more we look at the data the worse the problems with sampling become. Of course there's the obvious part that it appears as though Gage leased the facility to dishonestly give the impression that engineers and architects agree with him. That alone negates any value from the polling data.
 
Craig4 said:
As we covered before, there's really no meaning to be found given that the more we look at the data the worse the problems with sampling become. Of course there's the obvious part that it appears as though Gage leased the facility to dishonestly give the impression that engineers and architects agree with him. That alone negates any value from the polling data.
Click to expand...

I's bedtime on this side of the world so I'll have to say night-night for now boys.
 
bill smith said:
The figures are there in the link and I leave it to you to make any meaninggful correction.

Just lay it out in the same format and we can have another look.
Click to expand...

Don't need to. After all, we are examining your argument that 90% of engineers and architects that listen to Gage speaking are swayed by his argument into a belief in controlled demolition. As I have shown, there are several problems with that argument, and you don't seem overly keen on evidencing it.

Now, allow me to assert a scenario that is equally - if not more - plausible to your "90%" argument:

I will allow Gage his 100 architects and engineers, even if we aren't certain any actually attended. Out of these 100 architects and engineers, slightly more than half were already in the conspiracy camp before the lecture. The rest - 45 or so - voted their belief in fire and aircraft damage bringing down the buildings. As the lecture went on, people came and went. I find it hard to believe a competent architect or engineer staying around at a Richard Gage lecture, so the 45 who weren't already conspiracy theorists leave the auditorium. More people come in, true believers all.

As the lecture closes, 2 people who have managed to sit through the lecture despite being rationalists vote for fire and aircraft damage. The rest of the people in the auditorium are all true believers.

Nobody got swayed by the argument. Certainly no architects or engineers.

This assertion uses the same numbers you provided. I'm not saying that this is what happened, but it is equally - if not more - plausible to your un-evidenced assertion.
 
Last edited:
bill smith said:
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%.
Click to expand...

No different than walking into a bar at 2:00 am and asking how many are drunk, and then trying to extrapolate that to the rest of the population. :rolleyes:
 
bill smith said:
We all saw the hit pieces on TV. As regards the Hardfire show with Mark Roberts and Richard Gage here is Mark's own post on the jref after the show. He doesn;t sound like a very happy bunny does he ? Rightfully so.

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=3789539&postcount=128
Click to expand...

His happiness had nothing to do with how bad he beat Dick Gage in the debate and more so how the entirety of the event was handled with the libertarian mediator dropping in every other minute to pimp the ny libertarian party and the set of rules that were clearely meant to favor Gage who ended up flipping his lid anyways.
 
bill smith said:
I will just make this point. The evidence over a long period shows that if the Architect Richard Gage gave a presentation to the entire Nation, coast to coast that at least 90% of America would believe in the controlled demolition of the WTC Towers on 9/11 How about setting that up ?
Click to expand...

Why do you always want someone else to do your work for you?
 
bill smith said:
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
Click to expand...

His future is on the line all right, he must keep spouting garbage lest he be eating out of the garbage.
 
bill smith said:
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%.
Click to expand...

Billy Graham could beat him all hollow.
 
bill smith said:
The figures are there in the link and I leave it to you to make any meaninggful correction.

Just lay it out in the same format and we can have another look.
Click to expand...

Bill, any preacher could tell you that it ain't the number of altar calls you get that determines success but the number of dollars in the collection plate.
 
bill smith said:
I will just make this point. The evidence over a long period shows that if the Architect Richard Gage gave a presentation to the entire Nation, coast to coast that at least 90% of America would believe in the controlled demolition of the WTC Towers on 9/11 How about setting that up ?
Click to expand...

If Gage went to TAM and gave his presentation how do you think that it would be received? I'm pretty sure that his "Conversion" rate would be close to zero. The only reason I say "Close to" is because there's always someone in the crowd with a twisted sense of humor who would go with it just to twist some tails.
 
uke2se said:
Don't need to. After all, we are examining your argument that 90% of engineers and architects that listen to Gage speaking are swayed by his argument into a belief in controlled demolition. As I have shown, there are several problems with that argument, and you don't seem overly keen on evidencing it.

Now, allow me to assert a scenario that is equally - if not more - plausible to your "90%" argument:

I will allow Gage his 100 architects and engineers, even if we aren't certain any actually attended. Out of these 100 architects and engineers, slightly more than half were already in the conspiracy camp before the lecture. The rest - 45 or so - voted their belief in fire and aircraft damage bringing down the buildings. As the lecture went on, people came and went. I find it hard to believe a competent architect or engineer staying around at a Richard Gage lecture, so the 45 who weren't already conspiracy theorists leave the auditorium. More people come in, true believers all.

As the lecture closes, 2 people who have managed to sit through the lecture despite being rationalists vote for fire and aircraft damage. The rest of the people in the auditorium are all true believers.

Nobody got swayed by the argument. Certainly no architects or engineers.

This assertion uses the same numbers you provided. I'm not saying that this is what happened, but it is equally - if not more - plausible to your un-evidenced assertion.
Click to expand...

Bill, as I see that you're posting on other threads, would you mind commenting further here? After all, we're discussing your argument. Do you still think your argument was a good one? Do you still believe 90% of architects and engineers that listen to Gage are swayed into believing controlled demolition?
 
bill smith said:
Why don't YOU write the three questions that Richard Gage should ask at his presentations and then we can analyse them ?
Click to expand...
I have 3 questions that Gage should answer. Here's my top 2:

- Why are his building case studies so sloppy if he claims to be a competent researcher?

- On what basis other than his job title should I consider him credible?

I think in this case, lefty's description in the context of Gage's research capacity alone is entirely appropriate.
 
tsig said:
Why do you always want someone else to do your work for you?
Click to expand...

Because he is a troll who says the most outrageous things to get people worked up. After so many were catching on before, he disappeared for a few months. Apparently, people have forgotten his MO and there are new posters who have not had the pleasure of dealing with Bill.

Basically, there is no point in interacting with Bill since he is only an attention whore.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top Bottom