Scott Sommers
Illuminator
- Joined
- Jul 27, 2009
- Messages
- 3,866
I don't pay that much attention anymore. Just a quick look at his FB now, all I see is stuff about meditation and yoga. There's something from May 22
Merged ReThink911 - a Richard Gage ad campaign
- Thread starter Oystein
- Start date
I don't pay that much attention anymore. Just a quick look at his FB now, all I see is stuff about meditation and yoga. There's something from May 22
They cancelled the old version of this campaign as presented on Fundly, so that version of Team New York doesn't exist anymore (I don't know if you can still donate for it but probably not). They filled up this pool with money from other sources. Still, the various numbers they presented for this campaign during the last months are all over the place indeed.
From the Facebook page:
Looks like they know of the importance of putting a really mature gentleman in charge of their Facebook page to ensure a respectable looking campaign...
Those are the three comments (that I know of) that triggered this and have subsequently been removed:
Figa replied to the last post, though, before it was deleted:
ReThink911 said:
Looks like they know of the importance of putting a really mature gentleman in charge of their Facebook page to ensure a respectable looking campaign...
Those are the three comments (that I know of) that triggered this and have subsequently been removed:
Ivan Kmínek said:
Elizabeth Tague said:
Elizabeth Tague said:
Figa replied to the last post, though, before it was deleted:
Mike Figa said:
Good stuff, Muc! Thanks for capturing those posts for posterity's sake.Ivan Kminek
Muse
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2011
- Messages
- 906
Btw, although I'm not currently very active in this matter (and I basically ignore Facebook), I have posted on FB some remarks in some "original" debate on Rethink911, which is still available (?) here. There was also an interesting remark of Mike Figa, who agreed with me to some extent and basically "promised" that some of money from all this "fundraising" can go to some real new research of 911. This post disappeared. And then, the whole original debate disappeared (? I'm rather confused in what happened, more probable is that I simply do not understand Facebook as usually).
Last edited:
I see you got a surprising number of likes for your comments at that link, Ivan.
Good to see.
They can't silence all the shills!
Good to see.
They can't silence all the shills!
ergo
Illuminator
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2010
- Messages
- 4,339
Here's another for posterity's sake:
Ivan Kmínek said:
https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...26.59185411268&type=1&relevant_count=1&ref=nf
Did anyone report this? Putting a smiley face on a disturbing comment does not make it somehow less disturbing.
Last edited:
NoahFence
Banned
ergo
Illuminator
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2010
- Messages
- 4,339
Calling for someone's execution is not a laughing matter, Noah.
I suppose it shouldn't surprise me that people who support the plummeting highrises/al Qaeda conspiracy theory feel the need to bring their violence into other discussions, as well. But I think there are laws against such expressions.
At the very least, it warns us again of the need to monitor this increasingly volatile constituency. Especially for 9/11 researchers (the ones who do actual research and publish it) who, of necessity, must use their real names.
I suppose it shouldn't surprise me that people who support the plummeting highrises/al Qaeda conspiracy theory feel the need to bring their violence into other discussions, as well. But I think there are laws against such expressions.
At the very least, it warns us again of the need to monitor this increasingly volatile constituency. Especially for 9/11 researchers (the ones who do actual research and publish it) who, of necessity, must use their real names.
Ape of Good Hope
Graduate Poster
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2011
- Messages
- 1,502
Ivan Kminek
Muse
- Joined
- Jun 15, 2011
- Messages
- 906
Ergo: My "jokes" are rarely very funny, including this one. Sorry, if you feel offended (and Gage does not care anyway). But, Gage in principle has stubbornly accused some US people of the mass murder (qualified for the death sentence), for which he has no evidence, so my attempt to "joke" in this respect was also highly exaggerated.
ergo
Illuminator
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2010
- Messages
- 4,339
Ivan, to suggest someone should be executed is not a joke, not even a bad one. It is a very questionable choice of words on your part, and raises flags.
I think you would also agree that if a "twoofer" were ever found to be calling for a specific person's execution publicly, you folks would be all over it like slavering dogs. For days and days on end. Scott Sommers probably has some electronic notification system fine-tuned and waiting for just such an occurrence so he can start multiple threads about it.
Regarding the accusations you ascribe to Richard Gage: I've never heard him accuse anyone specifically about the murders of the 3,000 (and counting) WTC victims. Of course, understanding that buildings don't collapse into themselves from localized fires or damage does imply culpability on the part of those involved.
Finally, your opinion of Gage's evidence is merely your opinion. That you impose your opinion on others who you seek to mislead about these deaths, and the countless deaths arising from this event is what's offensive. So I have little tolerance for little 'tee hee' errors on your part. You could be putting your knowledge and expertise to so much better use.
I think you would also agree that if a "twoofer" were ever found to be calling for a specific person's execution publicly, you folks would be all over it like slavering dogs. For days and days on end. Scott Sommers probably has some electronic notification system fine-tuned and waiting for just such an occurrence so he can start multiple threads about it.
Regarding the accusations you ascribe to Richard Gage: I've never heard him accuse anyone specifically about the murders of the 3,000 (and counting) WTC victims. Of course, understanding that buildings don't collapse into themselves from localized fires or damage does imply culpability on the part of those involved.
Finally, your opinion of Gage's evidence is merely your opinion. That you impose your opinion on others who you seek to mislead about these deaths, and the countless deaths arising from this event is what's offensive. So I have little tolerance for little 'tee hee' errors on your part. You could be putting your knowledge and expertise to so much better use.
DGM
Skeptic not Atheist
Maybe telling peolple about how the Harrit et al paper is a farce? He's more than qualified for that. (and he uses his real name)
RepresentativePress
Scholar
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2007
- Messages
- 123
I just posted this: Representative Press The "before" pic is after the collapse has already started. Don't you think that is misleading? You use a pic where the east penthouse has already collapsed, don't you think people will question why you would use a picture that isn't really before the total collapse starts?
If anyone wants to go and like that comment. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...omment_id=8641389&offset=0&total_comments=110
If anyone wants to go and like that comment. https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?...omment_id=8641389&offset=0&total_comments=110
Report the truth? What Gage says makes him appear to be the idiot of all time.
It was a joke, you are going to report someone for a joke. This might be your problem understanding 911 and physics; a comprehension issue. Then you make up lies about people.
Did you report it yet? What, no action?
You also took it out of context. Are you upset your hero is a liar and spreads lies so stupid no one but a fringe few fall for his fantasy claims?
Dick "Cardbox" Gage clearly is an "Idiot of the Millennium" (so far) and should be executed, just to shorten his suffering
A source of comedy for people: Gage's delusions, and the nuts who follow him. A source of fun.
Did you report the facebook account for spreading dirt dumb lies?
Last edited:
RepresentativePress
Scholar
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2007
- Messages
- 123
I see someone gave a like to the comment, I assume it was someone from this forum so thank you. I think of this as an easy way to stick it to Gage and his BS organization. Maybe the more likes it gets the more it stands out and exposes the games they are up to? I will be making more videos exposing Gage . I really want to put an end to this "9/11 truth" BS. I look forward to input on what people here think are the strongest arguments against both Gage and truth movement.
Also I want to address Hoffman who said video of the inward bowing would settle whether the bowing really was taking place or if it was an optical illusion, well there is video of it!
TheRedWorm
I AM the Red Worm!
- Joined
- Aug 13, 2007
- Messages
- 4,452
Among the strongest of the arguments is simply asking a truth movement supporter to give you a timeline. One that incorporates all the events, and isn't totally laughable. Once they start anomaly hunting, the big picture becomes a jumbled mess.
ozeco41
Philosopher
The problem is that the strongest arguments are not the most persuasive arguments in the context where we meet truther claims. And that for a few big reasons:
By the strongest arguments I mean those arguments which are logically and evidentiary the most rigorous. Taking the claims for CD at the WTC as the working example. The base observable (and undeniable - I won't consider the fringe lunacies for this post
) facts are that on 9/11 an aircraft flew into each tower, did some damage, started fires, fires were not fought and after a period the towers collapsed. Prima facie those events caused the collapse - it was a result of the impact and fire damage. There have been multiple technical analyses made which give coherent overall explanations as to why the collapses occurred from that sequence of events. Any minor faults in or differences between those explanations does not change the fact that there is a far stronger than prima facie case for "impact and fires caused collapse." The opposing claims from the truth movement allege CD in some form. BUT:
a) All those claims (AFAIK) take the form of "Here is a single bit of anomaly; I say that means CD; you prove it wasn't." So no coherent hypothesis i.e. no case to answer, a reversed burden of proof AND a demand to prove a negative. If we are thinking about strongest legitimate arguments there is nothing to rebut.
b) The truther claims (again AFAIK) have NEVER been framed as a legitimate coherent overall hypothesis. In the legal sense there has never been a "prima facie case" - a claim which meets the threshold test of "a case to answer". We shouldn't even be responding to them - in a legal setting the defence would not even get called on to present defence because the claim does not meet prima facie.
So that example identifies the"strongest argument" but, as I said, it is obviously not the most persuasive. We are not dealing with reasoning people who are amenable to logical evidence based argument.
In reality the only reason that technical discussions such as those in this forum take place is because the debunkers find them interesting and it can be fun rebutting the technical nonsense. Some of the claims are technically interesting and challenging in themselves and we tend to forget that they are not legitimate "prove a claim right or wrong" argument about 9/11 - specifically CD as the example I chose. They cannot be "prove a claim wrong" because there is no legitimate claim. Merely one or more anomalies that the claimant cannot or pretends cannot explain AND a falsely structured argument based almost always on reversed burden of proof.
Take as an example ALL of the ThermXte and dust threads which have technical interest. Their legitimacy in 9/11 CT discussion is the tenuous link that ThermXte could have been used in CD.
But there was no CD. There has never been a prima facie case for CD. No case to answer.
Now the way I have put all that will no doubt raise some issues. Let's leave the "yes butting" aside for now.
Remember the question was "what are the strongest arguments". The fact that there is no legitimate claim, no case to answer is the strongest argument against CD at WTC. If we are after the strongest argument for objective discussion in some formal investigative process.
But that is not the scenario that RPress's question implies. He asks what are the strongest arguments but I think he needs the most persuasive arguments to put to truthers. And the big barriers there are:
1) Most truthers are not interested in legitimate strong arguments; AND
2) Most truthers appear to be incapable of or unwilling to process legitimate arguments; AND
3) (My hypothesis - which few recognise or want to discuss
) many people become truthers because they cannot process, formulate or present reasoned arguments.So chasing "strong arguments" in the sense of reasoned arguments is unlikely to be persuasive. The persuasion will most likely have to come from other processes than reasoned argument about technical issues.
And a final "throw-away comment" which could also open up a different complex area of discussion.
1) Yes there was "inward bowing"
2) NIST claimed that inward bowing started the collapse initiation stage;
3) Other researchers - see The911Forum - have made persuasive claims that the bowing was led by core failure.
4) So we have an argument between the "perimeter led NISToPhyle side" and the "core led NISToPhobes". So what? Why does it matter?
Nobody so far prepared to answer that last point. (yeah -- AFAIK again
)Reality is that through the cascading failure of the "initiation stage" both core and perimeter failed. And which ever bit went first it makes no difference - the top of tower fell. And in a cascade 'going first' does not invariably mean causal....etc etc....Both 'sides' shy away from the complexities.
The strongest arguments are often too complex for either side.... and that is another bit of red rag to have fun with.
Last edited: