View Active Topics          Latest 100 Topics          View Your Posts          Switch to Mobile

9/11 debate on C2C I consulted on for Richard Gage

Discuss Conspiracies and Cover Ups - e.g. 9/11 Truth, JFK Assassination, New World Order, Roswell, Moon Hoax, Secret Societies, etc. whatever conspiracy floats your boat.

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby ProfWag » 12 Sep 2010, 21:28

really? wrote:I don't know if scepcop lives in the USA, but if he does today would have been the day to watch the History Channel. Today aired documentaries and firsthand accounts all about 9/11

I don't believe Scepcop watches anything that doesn't have "youtube" associated with it.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54






Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby Edx » 14 Sep 2010, 08:24

Edx
 
Posts: 128
Joined: 03 Jul 2010, 03:21

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby really? » 14 Sep 2010, 20:52

I find it perplexing that an elaborate conspiracy by this government remains so much more believable than the fact that there are people we label terrorists whom don't like us even hate us and are willing to come to this country and kill us is not as believable.
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby The_Grand_Illusion » 18 Oct 2010, 17:36

really? wrote:I find it perplexing that an elaborate conspiracy by this government remains so much more believable than the fact that there are people we label terrorists whom don't like us even hate us and are willing to come to this country and kill us is not as believable.


As a generalisation, given the way we are programmed/indoctrinated/conditioned to view the world, the "terrorists who hate us" idea is definitely more believable. But that's only as a generalisation, and also taking into account our cultural conditioning. Breaking the official story down step by step and fact by fact, it implodes through its own sheer absurdity (and it's sold to us by career bullshit artists and criminals no less!). Every claim is another nail it its own coffin. But to get back to the point a little more, I'm not aware of any legit researchers claiming it was "the government". It's more accurate to speak of rogue elements within and around the government. Noone should take the "it's the government" idea seriously (let alone the "it was George W." idea!). Elements within/around it (Gov.) though, absolutely. Couldn't have worked any other way. (The massive evidence of foreknowledge alone bears this out, never mind the rest.)

I suggest reading some Webster Tarpley for the true sceptics here to start getting a bearing on these things. Follow it up with liberal doses of Jim Marrs and yer on yer way (or vice versa). The view of geopolitics we are presented with by the mass media and education system is a quaint farce and worse...
Brendan D. Murphy is the author of the forthcoming book series on the nature of reality and consciousness, The Grand Illusion: A Synthesis of Science, Mysticism and the Occult. Facebook page: http://www.facebook.com/#!/pages/The-Grand-Illusion-TGI/151764238172173?ref=ts

It's all just a dream, and the dream is dreaming itself...
User avatar
The_Grand_Illusion
 
Posts: 48
Joined: 30 Aug 2010, 20:20

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby Scepcop » 21 May 2012, 12:19

If I told you a story with more than 10 claims that were 100 percent impossible, would you believe it? If not, then why would anyone believe the official 9/11 story? It's highly illogical, as Spock and Data would say.
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby Scepcop » 21 May 2012, 12:20

Why does anyone still believe the official 9/11 story, which has been completely discredited? See this airtight 9/11 film where 50+ professional architects, structural engineers, and award winning scientists explain with basic logic and basic science why the official 9/11 story is totally false and 100 percent impossible. In other words, it has a 0.00 CHANCE of being true. It's a no brainer. No sane clear thinking person believes in it anymore except a few fruitcakes and paid debunkers trying to obfuscate and confuse people, though to no avail. So far, every objective unbiased clear thinking person who has seen this film and analyzed the objective evidence has reached the same conclusion. Psychologists weigh in at the end too. This film is THE CLINCHER that settles the debate. FOR SURE. GUARANTEED! There is no more doubt. All that's left is acceptance or denial.

9/11 Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out



Basic logic and basic science say that the official 9/11 story has a ZERO PERCENT chance of being true. There is no way 3 skyscrapers could fall at FREE FALL speed from fire, esp when one of them was NOT even hit by a plane. It's a no brainer. It's not possible for even one, let alone three. Buildings do not have zero resistance, if they did, the roof above you would collapse onto you right now. Duh.

Also, there is no way a 757 can crash and leave no debris. Not a chance. It's never happened. Yet on 9/11, it happened FOUR TIMES?! WTF?! That's 400 percent impossible! Four airliners crashed and left no debris? Yeah right. Who would be dumb enough to buy that? It's insane. Keep in mind that ALL the EARLIEST photos of the Flight 93 and Pentagon crash sites showed NO DEBRIS. So it doesn't matter if the government claims that there was debris or wreckage. And as we all know, words don't determine truth, objective physical evidence does. The physical evidence showed NONE. So no amount of propaganda can dispute that. Yet amazingly, most people still hold the programmed belief that "authority=truth", no matter how many times "authority" has lied to them. Go figure.

Another impossibility is that there is no way at all that those cell phone calls from the four planes could have taken place at 30,000 ft. No chance at all. Even today, when you are on an airliner, if you turn on your cell phone, you will see that you will have no signal at all. Sure the government can pay experts to say otherwise, but they can pay experts to say that the Moon is made of swiss cheese too. It doesn't mean anything. The bottom line is that ANYONE on an airliner can test this fact for themselves by trying to turn on their cell phone and confirm for themselves that it is NOT possible to make calls from a cell phone high up in the air. No amount of propaganda or obfuscation from government shills and paid debunkers can debunk that, because any random schmuck can test and confirm this. There's no escape from it.

I could list dozens of more reasons, but you get the point. Watch the film.
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: Upcoming 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I'm consulting on

Postby Scepcop » 21 May 2012, 12:57

really? wrote:I find it perplexing that an elaborate conspiracy by this government remains so much more believable than the fact that there are people we label terrorists whom don't like us even hate us and are willing to come to this country and kill us is not as believable.


Both are possible. Why do you propagandists believe everything that the government tell you and take it on faith, given the fact that they've lied many times in the past and present? Highly illogical.

Dr. Judy Wood says that the US government may not have been involved in 9/11, and that it could have been any outside entity or force. We just don't know. All she knows for sure is that high energy weapons were used on 9/11. Her book "Where did the towers go?" is based purely on evidence with no speculation, she says.

Her interview on Coast to Coast:



Her interview on Edge TV:



Jesse Ventura announces that he believes Dr. Judy Wood's explanation is the correct one:

“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I consulted on

Postby ProfWag » 21 May 2012, 20:50

You really should just give it up Scepcop. First off, there is no "official" story. And second, all of the things you just presented have been discredited over and over. It's time you accept that the U.S. was attacked by terrorists. Period. If you want to discuss what the government knew before hand, then fine. I'm sure they knew more than they have released to the public. But the arguments about there not being a plane that hit the Pentagon and no debris are completely irrational. Additionally, the coordinated efforts it would have taken for the government (or whomever you're saying this week) to plant bombs or thermite or whateverthehell to go off a couple hours after planes hit the building are not logical in the least.

The "truthseekers" are no closer to showing convincing evidence now than they were 10 years ago that terrorists acted alone in the destrictive events of 9/11. And you people who continue to want to degrade all of those who were affected that day should be ashamed of yourselves.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: 9/11 debate on C2C I consulted on for Richard Gage

Postby Scepcop » 26 Sep 2012, 21:50

Here are some other debates that Richard Gage has participated in about 9/11 besides the Dave Thomas debate I consulted on in 2010, both before and after.

Virtual debate at the National Press Club in Washington DC



vs Mark Roberts



vs JREF punk on the street



vs Ron Craig



vs Chris Mohr

“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I consulted on

Postby Scepcop » 26 Sep 2012, 22:00

ProfWag wrote:You really should just give it up Scepcop. First off, there is no "official" story. And second, all of the things you just presented have been discredited over and over. It's time you accept that the U.S. was attacked by terrorists. Period. If you want to discuss what the government knew before hand, then fine. I'm sure they knew more than they have released to the public. But the arguments about there not being a plane that hit the Pentagon and no debris are completely irrational. Additionally, the coordinated efforts it would have taken for the government (or whomever you're saying this week) to plant bombs or thermite or whateverthehell to go off a couple hours after planes hit the building are not logical in the least.

The "truthseekers" are no closer to showing convincing evidence now than they were 10 years ago that terrorists acted alone in the destrictive events of 9/11. And you people who continue to want to degrade all of those who were affected that day should be ashamed of yourselves.


LOL give up what? Your side has completely LOST long ago. You are just in denial of it. The bottom line FACT is that your side has NO EXPLANATION for the free fall collapse of three skyscrapers at free fall speed with zero resistance. NONE at all. ZILCH. ZERO. NADA. But Richard Gage does have an explanation that fits the data. Therefore, you lose. It's that simple. No need for obfuscation or complexity. YOU LOST. That's the bottom line.
“Devotion to the truth is the hallmark of morality; there is no greater, nobler, more heroic form of devotion than the act of a man who assumes the responsibility of thinking.” - Ayn Rand, Atlas Shrugged
User avatar
Scepcop
Site Admin
 
Posts: 3256
Joined: 16 May 2009, 07:29

Re: 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I consulted on

Postby ProfWag » 26 Sep 2012, 23:40

Scepcop wrote:LOL give up what? Your side has completely LOST long ago. You are just in denial of it. The bottom line FACT is that your side has NO EXPLANATION for the free fall collapse of three skyscrapers at free fall speed with zero resistance. NONE at all. ZILCH. ZERO. NADA. But Richard Gage does have an explanation that fits the data. Therefore, you lose. It's that simple. No need for obfuscation or complexity. YOU LOST. That's the bottom line.

My side? What side is that? The events of 9/11 are not me against you or anyone else. It's about all of us trying to find out what happened that day. Or, are you just admitting you are a conspiracy promoter regardless of the evidence?

Further, you're absolutely right. I don't have an explanation for the "free fall collapse." Perhaps that's because IT WASN'T A FREAKIN' FREE FALL!!! Sheesh.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I consulted on

Postby Arouet » 27 Sep 2012, 00:20

Scepcop wrote:LOL give up what? Your side has completely LOST long ago. You are just in denial of it. The bottom line FACT is that your side has NO EXPLANATION for the free fall collapse of three skyscrapers at free fall speed with zero resistance. NONE at all. ZILCH. ZERO. NADA. But Richard Gage does have an explanation that fits the data. Therefore, you lose. It's that simple. No need for obfuscation or complexity. YOU LOST. That's the bottom line.


PW has said it, but I'll just highlight- when someone argues that the buildings didn't free fall it doesn't help much to respond by saying that his explanation doesn't explain how they could free fall. Now, you might want to argue that they did in fact free fall - at least that would show you were responding to what he actually wrote.
Last edited by NinjaPuppy on 27 Sep 2012, 00:58, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: Fixed the 'quote' code error
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I consulted on

Postby ProfWag » 27 Sep 2012, 02:12

Arouet wrote:
Scepcop wrote:LOL give up what? Your side has completely LOST long ago. You are just in denial of it. The bottom line FACT is that your side has NO EXPLANATION for the free fall collapse of three skyscrapers at free fall speed with zero resistance. NONE at all. ZILCH. ZERO. NADA. But Richard Gage does have an explanation that fits the data. Therefore, you lose. It's that simple. No need for obfuscation or complexity. YOU LOST. That's the bottom line.


PW has said it, but I'll just highlight- when someone argues that the buildings didn't free fall it doesn't help much to respond by saying that his explanation doesn't explain how they could free fall. Now, you might want to argue that they did in fact free fall - at least that would show you were responding to what he actually wrote.

Can I point out that my post he was responding to was actually from May? (Though at least it was from this year, contrary to some other recent posts of his.) Oh yea, he's all over it... :roll:

I would still like to hear what he considers to be "free fall" in the first place. I doubt he even knows.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I consulted on

Postby NinjaPuppy » 27 Sep 2012, 03:38

ProfWag wrote:Can I point out that my post he was responding to was actually from May? (Though at least it was from this year, contrary to some other recent posts of his.) Oh yea, he's all over it... :roll:

And yet y'all insist on complaining that he never responds. :shock:
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: 9/11 debate on Coast to Coast I consulted on

Postby really? » 27 Sep 2012, 07:30

NinjaPuppy wrote:
ProfWag wrote:Can I point out that my post he was responding to was actually from May? (Though at least it was from this year, contrary to some other recent posts of his.) Oh yea, he's all over it... :roll:

And yet y'all insist on complaining that he never responds. :shock:

Better late then never I say. ;)
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

PreviousNext

Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests