-
Security incident: ISF was recently accessed by intruders. Please change your password, and change it anywhere else you used it. Read more
Did the Jan 23 Gage-Craig debate happen ?
- Thread starter BigAl
- Start date
-
- Tags
- richard gage ron craig
It most certainly did happen. The audio is in the AE911truth watch thread.
Walter Ego
Illuminator
I found a video version that I put up on my blog today.
http://911vids.blogspot.com/2010/01/conspiracy-show-with-richard-syrett.html
I am guessing the debate went something like this...
Gage: Did you know X happened, proving it was an inside job
Craig: actually, thats not what happened, here is what happened.
Gage: Did you know that Y happened, proving it was an inside job
Craig: actually, thats not what happened, here is what happened.
Gage: Did you know that Z happened, proving it was an inside job
Craig: Whacks head repeatedly off of desk.
TAM
Gage: Did you know X happened, proving it was an inside job
Craig: actually, thats not what happened, here is what happened.
Gage: Did you know that Y happened, proving it was an inside job
Craig: actually, thats not what happened, here is what happened.
Gage: Did you know that Z happened, proving it was an inside job
Craig: Whacks head repeatedly off of desk.
TAM
Edx
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2008
- Messages
- 5,642
Its not such a great job for Gage screw ups IMO, but its great if you combine it with the previous Gage interview in terms of contradictions. I'll have to make another video showing some more stupid comments by Gage doing this.
Unfortunately, while Ron provides excellent rebuttals to explosives and firefighter arguments, IE his area of expertise, he doesn't do well in rebutting Gage's other claims.
For example Gage used the Chief Palmer quote that Floor 78 had only two isolated pockets of fire and Ron doesn't rebut it, clearly he hadn't heard that before. He also hadn't heard of the microspheres, that didn't look good and started to deny they existed. He claimed there was no molten metal AT ALL rather than saying it was most likely Aluminium if it was anything. Gage also claimed that all the steel was shipped off before it was looked at, again Ron doesn't counter it with the fact that it was. He also had no response to the sulfurization-effect of some of the steel members that Gage kept going on about. Ron also doesn't explain the dust cloud. He lets Gage get away with the stupid phrase "pyroclastic cloud", he even uses it himself, and doesn't talk about how most of that dust would be the dry wall not concrete and how even building collapses without explosives still create large dust clouds.
Ron in my opinion also didn't know enough about nano-thermite to show that Gage is misrepresenting it, you can glean that impression if you try hard but you have to understand the main point about explosives not being able to do what Gage claims they can do first and remember what Ron said earlier but acting ignorant in respect to nano-thermite to truther's just means they will ignore everything he says about it since they've then decided he doesn't know what it is and so they can still justify believing it has all these mythical properties.
One thing I did notice was Gage early on says they never made the claim that the firefighters surrounding the glowing hole in the ground was evidence of thermite! I'll need to listen again, but that was funny.
Unfortunately, while Ron provides excellent rebuttals to explosives and firefighter arguments, IE his area of expertise, he doesn't do well in rebutting Gage's other claims.
For example Gage used the Chief Palmer quote that Floor 78 had only two isolated pockets of fire and Ron doesn't rebut it, clearly he hadn't heard that before. He also hadn't heard of the microspheres, that didn't look good and started to deny they existed. He claimed there was no molten metal AT ALL rather than saying it was most likely Aluminium if it was anything. Gage also claimed that all the steel was shipped off before it was looked at, again Ron doesn't counter it with the fact that it was. He also had no response to the sulfurization-effect of some of the steel members that Gage kept going on about. Ron also doesn't explain the dust cloud. He lets Gage get away with the stupid phrase "pyroclastic cloud", he even uses it himself, and doesn't talk about how most of that dust would be the dry wall not concrete and how even building collapses without explosives still create large dust clouds.
Ron in my opinion also didn't know enough about nano-thermite to show that Gage is misrepresenting it, you can glean that impression if you try hard but you have to understand the main point about explosives not being able to do what Gage claims they can do first and remember what Ron said earlier but acting ignorant in respect to nano-thermite to truther's just means they will ignore everything he says about it since they've then decided he doesn't know what it is and so they can still justify believing it has all these mythical properties.
One thing I did notice was Gage early on says they never made the claim that the firefighters surrounding the glowing hole in the ground was evidence of thermite! I'll need to listen again, but that was funny.
Last edited:
The bit that really surprised me was that Craig seems now to be fully behind a new wtc7 investigation.
I have heard both debates. I think Gage won the first and Craig won the second. I think Craig was unprepared for the first debate but he seemed very clued up in the second one.
Except that he denied the existence of the microspheres.
I have heard both debates. I think Gage won the first and Craig won the second. I think Craig was unprepared for the first debate but he seemed very clued up in the second one.
Except that he denied the existence of the microspheres.
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 36,711
There was no debate on Jan. 23; that's Gage's two week late spin on the debate that occurred on Jan. 10.
Edx
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2008
- Messages
- 5,642
And various scientists have a problem with the NIST report but not in the way truther's do, they have specific criticisms about how fire caused the buildings to collapse. I think even Mackey said he doesn't agree with every detail.
To think saying Ron wanting to see another investigation relates to Gage wanting a new investigation is absurd.
Ron clarifies near the end that he doesn't think it was the failure of column 79 so much as the connections themselves. Whether he is right doesn't matter, what matters is his disagreement with NIST is comparatively extremely minor.
No doubt he will still be used to claim that even Ron Craig, explosives expert, wants to see a new investigation anyway.
Not enough, there was plenty basic stuff he could known as I pointed out.
Last edited:
LashL
Goddess of Legaltainment™
- Joined
- Aug 12, 2006
- Messages
- 36,711
Ron thinks that the inaptly self-named "truthers" are completely looneytunes, and does not support their alleged call for a "new investigation" into the collapses of the WTC buildings as Gage claims.
It is complete nonsense for Gage to suggest otherwise, as Ron does not in any way agree with Gage's stupidity. The only "new investigation" that he supports is that which the rest of the rational among us support a "new investigation"; that is to say, "If truthers want a new investigation, get on with it already and leave the rest of us out of it."
Edx
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2008
- Messages
- 5,642
I wonder if they will put him on Patriots 4 911 Truth like they do with the dead victims?
You can read my criticisms of NIST's WTC 1 and 2 report in my whitepaper. I devote an entire chapter to contrasting the different approaches and results, along with my specific criticisms. Another chapter covers scientific progress after NIST finished its report. And I treat in-depth criticism from Eric Douglas in detail, agreeing with a good portion of it.
But these are just details. Think of it like this: Suppose one research team decides the average American male is 175 cm tall. Another team decides the correct answer is 178 cm. And then the Truthers claim that since the teams don't agree, their own guess that the real figure is 6,252 cm is just as valid.
The microspheres, melted metal, etc., these details have obvious and simple explanations. The only reason Truthers dwell on them is because, through repetition, they've found things that other people are less likely to have heard of, and makes Truthers sound the least idiotic at first blush. It's just what they do. No need to worry, that is also all that they do.
Seymour Butz
Muse
- Joined
- Jun 20, 2008
- Messages
- 884
Isn't this what NIST believes happened anyways?
The floor beam expanded and broke the girder to column connection, which then resulted in a floor failure, which then broke other floor/girder connections, which led to the collapse of 79, which led to the horizontal progression, which resulted in the global collapse.
It is a twoof lie that 7 collapsed as a result of col 79's failure. This implies that it failed to heat. This is the lie they tell so that they can use their incredulity about the fire's size.
Ron does not think truthers are looney tunes. During the debate he congratulated Gage on his work and his desire to inform people about it. Ron does not seem like the typical knee-jerk debunker that resides here. I notice he isn't a member here. I ouldn't encourage him to join because you might have another Frank Greening style embarassment.
Highlights of the anti-intellectual movement of 911 truth which spews delusions based on hearsay and lies. A fringe few who can only talk and are hung up on "debunkers".
Have to grade posts by truthers by how many times they say, "debunker". Their red badge of stupid ideas summed up by their lack of evidence and delusional conclusions.
You obviously have not heard of being polite. The "polite" thing to do, when entering or participating in a debate, is to find something good to say about your opponent, no matter how hard.
but believe what you like...you (and the others) always do.
TAM
Edx
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2008
- Messages
- 5,642
Ron was being nice and polite.
Note that he congratulated Gage not on being factually correct but about telling people what he believes.
I suspect you believe he said something else in the same way as you think him wanting to have WTC7 looked at again is the same as Gage asking for a new investigation.
Last edited:
Edx
Philosopher
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2008
- Messages
- 5,642