Invite Richard Gage to the Forum!

Discussion in '9/11' started by l4zarus, Oct 27, 2016.

  1. l4zarus

    l4zarus Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Recently some truthers, (okay, Scott) say that the evidence for 9/11 is crushing and the media won't cover it. Because they're in on it. Or something. Whatever. The point is, now is the time for the truthers in the forum to step up and offer Richard Gage a platform for all the devastating evidence the media just won't cover.

    Why Mr. Gage? Well, Scott keeps linking to this "devastating" or crushing" evidence in this post:

    http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=456423&p=1066183060#post1066183060

    There were no hijackers. 9/11 was an inside job. The US government planned and carried it out. The proof is crushing.

    September 11 -- The New Pearl Harbor (FULL)
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8DOnAn_PX6M

    Pilot Who Flew The Airplanes That Crashed on 9/11 Speaks Out!
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IXA-enq65ng

    Explosives Technician - Loader - AE911Truth.org
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u5IgqJXyLbg

    ARCHITECTS AND ENGINEERS FOR 911 TRUTH (full unreleased version)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X-V1CiuGMJo

    Architects & Engineers - Solving the Mystery of WTC 7 - AE911Truth.org
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZMEHc14IWf4

    Was the 9-11 Attack the 2001 Version of "Operation Northwoods"?
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIoK9wvJyyU

    Operation Northwoods document
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFku_mDwbsE


    There are plausible motives.

    9/11 False Flag Conspiracy - Finally Solved (Names, Connections, Motives)
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RAAztWC5sT8

    http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/new-american-century/

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/search?q=lithium

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/search?...+oil&x=13&y=15

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/iran-s-...e-horizon/1937

    NEW 2015! Solving 9/11 Christopher Bollyn Live in Dallas TX Feb 12, 2015
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EVHstSrC1CQ


    People who still believe the official story should check this info out.

    Why Can't They See The Truth? Psychologists Help 9 11 Truth Deniers
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Xzmprkpxac

    http://www1.ae911truth.org/faqs/821-...bout-911-.html



    As one can see, Richard Gage's AE911Truth is featured prominently in this list of "crushing" evidence. I am particularly interested in where Gage asserts there were no hijackers. Exciting stuff ahead!

    We haven’t heard from Scott on whether he's contacted AE911Truth yet, but it has been less than a day. There is of course nothing to stop any other "truther" from inviting him. Once you do, just post in this thread so we know when Gage will be arriving.


    On the long shot Gage actually shows up, I would encourage those of us, um, sceptical about conspiracies to try to engage Gage(< see what I did there?) civilly as he explains his theories and answers questions. Believe me, there's plenty of awkward facts out there simply asking them will be discomfiting enough.
     
  2. Kokomojojo

    Kokomojojo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2009
    Messages:
    14,698
    Likes Received:
    356
    Trophy Points:
    83
    now that made me bust a gut laughing.
    you want a 30 year professional hirise engineer to (*)(*)(*)(*) away his valuable time on a forum to explain engineering to a bunch of 'posers' who do not know the difference between a calculator and a cell phone? Now that had me laughing so hard I spit up my coffee. Warn me next time this kind of foolishness is posted, lol

    It goes without saying that if you dont understand his website you certainly wont understand it any better if he is here in person. take my advice and go to school and get your degree in engineering.
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  3. Gamolon

    Gamolon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 4, 2013
    Messages:
    2,332
    Likes Received:
    85
    Trophy Points:
    48
    And you know the difference between an architect and an engineer?
     
  4. Shinebox

    Shinebox Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2015
    Messages:
    1,146
    Likes Received:
    47
    Trophy Points:
    48
    he obviously can't read his own nonsense ... architects love to design buildings that exceed engineering limits just to be pretty ... us engineers have to reel them in ...

    that's why we "stamp" the submitted plans and not architects ... show me one page of a hi rise plan with a stamp impression by an architect rather than an engineer ...

    having said that, we still have project managers and superintendents going over our revisions and changes ... it takes a multitude of people to build a hi rise ...

    we try our best to make it look like an architect's "vision" ...
     
    cjnewson88 likes this.
  5. l4zarus

    l4zarus Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Seems the forum has gotten more active. That's great! When Gage arrives we can give him a big welcome!
     
  6. 9/11 was an inside job

    9/11 was an inside job Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2011
    Messages:
    6,492
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    63
    and the winner for the best post on this thread? koko.:clapping::thumbsup:

    Yeah why would he waste his valuable time on a bunch of posers who only see what they want to see and obviously skipped junior high school science classes and refuse to look at the evidence or facts?:roll:


    He isnt about to waste his time taking a bunch of Bush dupes to school who dont want to accept facts 9/11 was an inside job.:roll:
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  7. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,193
    Likes Received:
    1,123
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Exactly, these people are insignificant and are just a distraction. Why would anyone want to try to convince them not to do their daily job?
     
  8. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,082
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    48
    I went to one of Richard Gage's dog and pony shows in May of 2008 when he gave it at Chicago Circle Campus.

    This is an example of the crap:

    9/11 WTC Controlled Demolition Debate Richard Gage vs Chris Mohr
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7-AaS5MOkBM

    As far as I am concerned Chris Mohr is a Liberal Arts moron and Gage should have been able to fill him full of holes without even breathing hard.

    But I got in line after the show to question Gage in 2008 and I asked him about the mass distributions of the steel and concrete in the Twin Towers. First he looked at me like I had grown a second head, then he said that the NIST was not releasing accurate blue prints. Since 9/11 more than 50 buildings over 1,000 feet tall have been constructed. Home computers have gotten more powerful since 9/11. Even the stuff that was available in 2001 was far more powerful than what was used to design the Twin Towers, an IBM 1620.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_1620

    https://www-03.ibm.com/ibm/history/exhibits/mainframe/mainframe_PP1620.html

    http://www.liquisearch.com/construction_of_the_world_trade_center/design/structural_design

    By the standards of 20 years ago the computer used to help design the WTC was a joke. But of course the Empire State Building was designed without an electronic computer. This is why the entire 9/11 Affair is a hysterical joke.

    Gage is supposed to be an architect. Why haven't they been able to recompute the data for the building if necessary after all of this time? But do they ever even talk about something as simple as the Center of Gravity of the tilted top portion of the south tower. NO!

    It is like AE911Truth wants to just be "Believed" rather than actually explain things so everyone can "understand" for themselves.

    psik
     
  9. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,193
    Likes Received:
    1,123
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I never cared much for these "debates" set up by AE911T. I always thought they demeaned themselves by conducting these with OCT supporters/defenders.

    That's one reason why I thought the debates were ineffective and possibly backfired, Gage is not a debater, he should just stick to what he does best.

    I've read many articles and watched many of the videos, it's not just about Gage, there are many others in all sorts of scientific disciplines and I'm quite satisfied with and understand the explanations. Without these people, we'd probably still be in the stone age with regard to identifying the OCT as a scam. They're not perfect for sure but then again we're all dealing with a lot of unknowns and so are they. IMO their work is exemplary and more importantly, critical.

    My focus is not on theories, my focus is on exposing the scam and the scammers. That's not theory, it's black and white fact based on their own evidence. AE911T is only one source, there's much more. These people are criminals who were complicit in (or more like had a direct hand in) murdering over 3,000 innocent people on 9/11 and caused massive damage, then used that crime as pretext to destroy hundreds of thousands of other lives and commit all sorts of other human rights atrocities. And they're still at work today.
     
  10. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,082
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    48
    Chris Mohr outright lied in this "debate".

    At 16:10 he says, "There were 90,000 plus liters of jet fuel that were exploded out there".

    The first time I heard that years ago, I thought 90,000??? I had always seen the data in gallons. Each plane had about 10,000 gallons of fuel which was 40% of the full capacity of 24,000 gallons. 90,000 liters is the maximum capacity of the tanks. The planes only had 38,000 liters and some sources say less than that.

    The airlines provide enough fuel to reach the destination plus a little extra for safety. They do not want planes landing with lots of extra fuel because it is dangerous and would waste money flying unnecessary fuel around.

    It is also funny how he says the planes were 282,000 pounds. That is a really impressive number. It is 141 tons. The buildings were 400,000 tons. Do you want that in pounds? LOL Mohr is a propagandist.

    psik
     
  11. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,193
    Likes Received:
    1,123
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And this is one reason why Gage should not be debating about 9/11, besides the fact that he's not a professional debater. As an aside who the **** is Chris Mohr anyway? He's not a relevant expert in anything, just a die hard OCT lover. If anything, Gage should have debated someone from NIST or Popular Mechanics, that would have made more sense but still worthless. I've heard Tony Szamboti in a debate too. He's a brilliant and highly knowledgeable engineer but he's a really poor debater.

    In a debate, no one needs to support any claims. We see this time and time again with the Presidential debates, where each candidate at times makes false, misleading or exaggerated claims. Then the next day, something like Fact Checker lists all the lies and half-truths (not that Fact Checker is the ultimate truth either, just an example). Unfortunately the damage is already done and many in the audience have already swallowed the BS and the better debater won regardless of the truth.
     
  12. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,816
    Likes Received:
    164
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I was looking for an appropriate thread to post this.

    https://www.globalresearch.ca/911-a...elieve-in-their-own-brand-of-miracles/5630813

    (excerpt)
    --------------------------------------------
    Interestingly, Griffin divides the world into three types of people:
    • Those guided by evidence
    • Those guided by their paradigms of how the world is thus if 9/11 being a false flag does not fit into their paradigms of how the world works they simply will not consider the evidence
    • Those guided by wishful-and-fearful thinking thus if the idea of their own government perpetrating an horrific crime on their own people is too awful to bear they simply will not believe the evidence
      Shouldn’t self-styled skeptics, by definition, be of the first type? Apparently, not a one is. They seem to be all of the second type or possibly third.

    --------------------------------------------

    Documentary about Cognitive Dissonance and 9/11

     
    Bob0627 likes this.
  13. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,193
    Likes Received:
    1,123
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Current Events section, its own thread.

    EDIT: Or the Science section, also its own thread.
     
    Last edited: Mar 4, 2018
  14. Scott

    Scott Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2008
    Messages:
    2,816
    Likes Received:
    164
    Trophy Points:
    63
  15. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,193
    Likes Received:
    1,123
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yep as can already be seen.
     
  16. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,193
    Likes Received:
    1,123
    Trophy Points:
    113
    At One Million Views, Richard Gage’s Interview Is the Most-Watched C-SPAN Video — Ever

    Earlier this week, Richard Gage’s 2014 C-SPAN interview surpassed one million views on CSPAN.org, cementing its place as the network’s most-watched video of all time.

    Gage’s 40-minute appearance on C-SPAN’s Washington Journal has dwarfed all other videos, receiving 150,000 more views than the second-ranked video and nearly twice as many views as the fourth highest video, a 1994 press conference with Hillary Clinton on the Whitewater investigation.

    Read the rest ...

    http://www.ae911truth.org/news/438-cspan-one-million-views.html

    The interview:

    https://www.c-span.org/video/?320748-5/washington-journal-architects-engineers-911-truth&start=0

    It's obvious people want to know and are still interested in 9/11.
     
  17. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,193
    Likes Received:
    1,123
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2018
  18. l4zarus

    l4zarus Member

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2012
    Messages:
    886
    Likes Received:
    19
    Trophy Points:
    18
    So...Richard Gage has been pretty quiet these days. Colorado not quite the Truther Mecca he thought? Looking for other sources o income? Interesting no one supporting Gage wants to invite him to explain his views. Or non profit business model. Either, or.
     
  19. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    6,804
    Likes Received:
    2,391
    Trophy Points:
    113
    How can you know how much fuel was onboard the aircraft that struck the towers?

    Those aircraft were drones commanded by the perpetrators of the attacks. That is, they were NOT the airliners claimed by the official tale.

    Yes, it's a small point and trivial, but nobody here knows how much fuel was onboard.
     
  20. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,193
    Likes Received:
    1,123
    Trophy Points:
    113
    To be fair and accurate, we don't really know that, it's just a theory. That's why this part of the lawsuit vs the FBI/DOJ exists:

    109. The 9/11 Commission did not consider the FBI’s records and other FBI evidence referencing or reflecting the aircraft parts’ serial numbers on, or other features of, plane parts and wreckage recovered from any of the three 9/11 attack/crash sites (WTC, Pentagon, and Shanksville). The FBI’s evidence related to the serial numbers on, or other features of, plane parts and wreckage recovered from any of the three 9/11 attack/crash sites (WTC, Pentagon, and Shanksville) was also not assessed in the FBI 9/11 Review Commission’s Report.

    https://ae911truth.org/images/PDFs/LC-AE-FBI-Lawsuit-Complaint-032519-E-Stamped.pdf

    The onus is on the US government (the FBI in this case) to prove those airplane parts actually belong to the officially claimed planes. But even if they in fact do (and that would require an incontrovertible chain of custody for each recovered part, not just a serial number match), it still doesn't prove who and how they were piloted. That would require additional evidence yet unknown. This is why forensics is so critical in such an investigation, something never done (or never shown to have been done) by the US government despite universally accepted requirements.
     
  21. Mr_Truth

    Mr_Truth Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 23, 2012
    Messages:
    32,460
    Likes Received:
    35,093
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    If he's a political lefty then his posts will be censored due to the political leanings of certain interested parties here. If con servative he will be welcomed by those same ...
     
    Scott likes this.
  22. Eleuthera

    Eleuthera Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Jun 13, 2015
    Messages:
    6,804
    Likes Received:
    2,391
    Trophy Points:
    113
    What we know is that all the physical evidence and much more shows the aircraft that struck the towers were not AA11 and UA175, and by "we" I mean people familiar with such airplanes. That is supported by the fact that nobody has been allowed to inspect the physical evidence, even as photos taken by the public show the engine on the sidewalk to be from something other than a stock 767.

    Further we know that proof of hijackings does not exist. The cell phone calls were impossible, there was confusion from Day One about which aircraft departed from which gate, the presence of 'injects' on the radar screens.

    The larger point is that the official story cannot be proved, therefore it is doubtful that any element of it can be proved, as the Commission alluded to 63 times in its report.
     
  23. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,193
    Likes Received:
    1,123
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I understand that the entire OCT story is suspect from start to finish (and completely false in certain aspect) and there is a vast amount of coverup going on so we can't get the entire story or the real story. Having said that I am not going to personally make the leap that the planes were drones unless and until evidence conclusively proves otherwise. Circumstantial evidence is not proof, it's still only circumstantial evidence and subject to error. I'll be the first to say the OCT is a massive propaganda fairy tale but I want to see conclusive evidence that refutes/contradicts/questions every single detail of the OCT rather than speculate as to who, what, where, when, how and why it was done. I am fully confident that the 3 towers were destroyed by controlled demolition on 9/11 because besides the vast amount of supporting hard and circumstantial evidence, deductive reasoning leads to one and only one conclusion and refutes the official claim(s). It's possible that similar logic applies to the 9/11 planes with respect to the drone theory but it isn't enough of a slam dunk for me unlike the destruction of the 3 towers. Suffice it to say for many reasons I agree that the planes were most likely drones (or other) and very likely not the officially claimed planes. In any investigation, we must begin at the beginning and meticulously/forensically identify each and every piece of the recovered debris and take it from there.
     
    Eleuthera likes this.
  24. psikeyhackr

    psikeyhackr Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2009
    Messages:
    1,082
    Likes Received:
    40
    Trophy Points:
    48
    If I am wrong about 10,000 gallons because they were actually drones then Mohr is even more wrong about 90,000 gallons. That was the maximum fuel capacity. Airlines don't fully fuel planes unless they are doing trans-Pacific or trans-polar flights. They do not want planes landing with lots of fuel. So discrediting Mohr would be part of my agenda.

    All I care about is proving the building could not have collapsed due to impact and fire. I do not really care if it was an airliner or a drone. Even if I thought it was a drone I would not bring it up because it would just muddy the issue in most people's minds. I think that is what a lot of these stupid theories are about anyway.
     
    Last edited: Apr 15, 2019
    Eleuthera likes this.
  25. Bob0627

    Bob0627 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 28, 2015
    Messages:
    6,193
    Likes Received:
    1,123
    Trophy Points:
    113
    If that's all you care about then by extension you don't care that if the above is true the entire OCT falls apart and 9/11 has to be an inside job and if that's true then you don't care that it was an inside job. As you said you only care about the physics. Unfortunately though there are consequences to the physics of 9/11 being correct and NIST's alchemy being just that.
     

Share This Page