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

Richard Gage and the AIA

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: Richard Gage and the AIA

Postby NinjaPuppy » 09 Oct 2012, 06:17

ProfWag wrote:Technically, Sydney is right in that engineers would be in a better position than architects to understand how the building fell which leaves Gage even more out in the dark on his theories.

However, the petition merely asks for an independent investigation. It doesn't go very deep into any of Gage's theories.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44






Re: Richard Gage and the AIA

Postby ProfWag » 09 Oct 2012, 07:28

NinjaPuppy wrote:
ProfWag wrote:Technically, Sydney is right in that engineers would be in a better position than architects to understand how the building fell which leaves Gage even more out in the dark on his theories.

However, the petition merely asks for an independent investigation. It doesn't go very deep into any of Gage's theories.

Perhaps "theory" as in singular is more appropriate. From his website:
"We believe that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that three World Trade Center buildings #1 (North Tower), #2 (South Tower), and #7 (the 47-story high-rise across Vesey St.) were destroyed not by jet impact and fires but by controlled demolition with explosives."
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Richard Gage and the AIA

Postby SydneyPSIder » 10 Oct 2012, 16:08

ProfWag wrote:In addition to the AIA, I do know the following organizations also do not support Mr. Gage: CTBUH, RIBA, KBF (NY's largest architectural firm), ASCE, and the SEAoNY. I'm sure there are more...
Note for clarity, the referenced acronyms spelled out:
CTBUH - Council on Tall Buildings and Urban Habitat
RIBA - Royal Institute of British Architects
ASCE - American Society of Civil Engineers
SEAoNY - Structural Engineer Association of New York


Are there any links, references or text to this claim for each of the bodies listed above? And who are the spokespersons, and what are the technical analyses they have performed? (The constant demand for references and citations appears to be a one-way street on this site.) Is an appeal to authority the same as scientific evidence or research? That's one on the pseudoscep checklist, isn't it? And we can be sure of no elite influence or conflict of interest, of course. I'm not sure how any of those bodies can have conducted any research on the remains, because it was all cleared away. Research done prior to 2001 on steel-framed structure fires suggests that they should not have collapsed.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Richard Gage and the AIA

Postby ProfWag » 10 Oct 2012, 21:11

SydneyPSIder wrote:Are there any links, references or text to this claim for each of the bodies listed above? And who are the spokespersons, and what are the technical analyses they have performed? (The constant demand for references and citations appears to be a one-way street on this site.)

Yes, how unthoughtful of me. Here ya' go:

CTBUH - http://www.ctbuh.org/LinkClick.aspx?fil ... uage=en-US

RIBA - http://archinect.com/news/article/11045 ... -9-11-talk

ASCE - http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/

SEAoNY - http://www.seaony.org/publications/file ... l11-01.pdf
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Richard Gage and the AIA

Postby Arouet » 10 Oct 2012, 23:37

SydneyPSIder wrote: Is an appeal to authority the same as scientific evidence or research? That's one on the pseudoscep checklist, isn't it?


An appeal to an expert in their field is not a logical fallacy and is probably preferable to drawing conclusions oneself where expert knoledge is needed to really understand it. I read a lot of studies but I don't fool myself that I fully understand them and sometimes don't understand them at all!

We can't be experts in every topic, and can't research ourselves every topic (well, if we have jobs and families that is).
User avatar
Arouet
 
Posts: 2544
Joined: 07 Aug 2010, 03:07

Re: Richard Gage and the AIA

Postby NinjaPuppy » 11 Oct 2012, 00:52

Perhaps "theory" as in singular is more appropriate. From his website:
"We believe that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that three World Trade Center buildings #1 (North Tower), #2 (South Tower), and #7 (the 47-story high-rise across Vesey St.) were destroyed not by jet impact and fires but by controlled demolition with explosives."

Yes, but not on his petition.

My point being that many people will sign a document (in this case a petition) without researching details if the document is simple and they agree with the wording of that document. Since we don't know if text from his website has been edited or added to since the inception of this document, there is no way to know if people were aware of these theories at time of signing.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Richard Gage and the AIA

Postby ProfWag » 11 Oct 2012, 02:28

NinjaPuppy wrote:
Perhaps "theory" as in singular is more appropriate. From his website:
"We believe that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that three World Trade Center buildings #1 (North Tower), #2 (South Tower), and #7 (the 47-story high-rise across Vesey St.) were destroyed not by jet impact and fires but by controlled demolition with explosives."

Yes, but not on his petition.

My point being that many people will sign a document (in this case a petition) without researching details if the document is simple and they agree with the wording of that document. Since we don't know if text from his website has been edited or added to since the inception of this document, there is no way to know if people were aware of these theories at time of signing.

Yes, that is true and was sitting in the back of my head the whole time as possible. Though you did say that statement had been there since at least 2009 when there were far fewer signers.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Richard Gage and the AIA

Postby NinjaPuppy » 11 Oct 2012, 03:45

ProfWag wrote:Yes, that is true and was sitting in the back of my head the whole time as possible. Though you did say that statement had been there since at least 2009 when there were far fewer signers.

Did you not check the link that I provided? It linked directly to the petition, not his website.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Richard Gage and the AIA

Postby SydneyPSIder » 11 Oct 2012, 08:00

ProfWag wrote:
SydneyPSIder wrote:Are there any links, references or text to this claim for each of the bodies listed above? And who are the spokespersons, and what are the technical analyses they have performed? (The constant demand for references and citations appears to be a one-way street on this site.)

Yes, how unthoughtful of me. Here ya' go:

CTBUH - http://www.ctbuh.org/LinkClick.aspx?fil ... uage=en-US

RIBA - http://archinect.com/news/article/11045 ... -9-11-talk

ASCE - http://911-engineers.blogspot.com/

SEAoNY - http://www.seaony.org/publications/file ... l11-01.pdf


Thanks. Sorry, but those supposed 'statements' are a disgrace. They are riddled with the usual errors of fact and emotion, and some are not official positions at all, and therefore your statement is false. The RIBA article says essentially nothing but that they won't entertain an investigation and don't want to think about it. The dodgy blogspot, written by a pseudosceptic, is not an official statement from any engineers association at all -- and implies that because engineers don't openly come out in favour of an investigation they must be against it -- when in fact there could be many other reasons -- they secretly suspect it, but don't want to rock the boat, they just don't care, they're too busy doing their jobs and making money, they're afraid of the sack, they're inherently conservative people, no-one knows. So that proves absolutely nothing.

What is particularly disgraceful about the engineering blogspot article entries are the pious claims that it's important to 'model' the collapse in software after the event so it doesn't happen again -- with no reference to the fact that all the evidence was cleared away with the intent to deny a forensic investigation for the reasons for failure. I would point out here that my own father is a forensic steel metallurgist whose job it is to analyse steel structures that have failed -- by a process of microscopic analysis, stress calculations, and so on. He actually needs physical samples to do that, there's no point speculating about it later with a computer model. The perpetrators clearly did not want that to happen, and weren't 'scientifically interested' to know what had happened because they knew what did it -- it was the explosives they'd planted.

ProfWag is clearly no Prof at all in real life -- this is actually beneath an appeal to authority, and is just an appeal to prejudice -- the logic goes round and round in a circle. The RIBA's prejudice becomes his prejudice. (And in particular I wouldn't trust a British conservative organisation with 'Royal' in the title with possible ties to Bush-Blair to be avid seekers of the truth.)

Bottom line: a bunch of low life crooks have pulled off a huge hoax at great cost to buildings and life, and used the hoax to justify costly wars of aggression killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people, and ProfWag wants to help them get away with it.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Richard Gage and the AIA

Postby Misha » 11 Oct 2012, 11:02

"Bottom line: a bunch of low life crooks have pulled off a huge hoax at great cost to buildings and life, and used the hoax to justify costly wars of aggression killing hundreds of thousands of innocent people,"


SydneyPSIder, I concur in full. This event was a "program," period. In fact, I have recently met and have been in contact with Susan Lindauer about how the program was put in place. I ask you folks to read her book - "Extreme Prejudice." Yes, I have named dropped to clarify my research. Please take this as sharing and not ego boosting.

I take no pleasure in saying this. But, as soon as the American people realize that they have been used as cannon fodder the quicker we will realize how to get our country back. I say this with complete stoicism too.
Misha
 
Posts: 438
Joined: 19 Aug 2012, 03:42

Re: Richard Gage and the AIA

Postby SydneyPSIder » 11 Oct 2012, 20:30

Good luck getting your country back... The elites have realised the power of exploiting the military and technology through structured means and the use of rhetoric and spin.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Richard Gage and the AIA

Postby ProfWag » 11 Oct 2012, 21:04

SydneyPSIder wrote:Thanks. Sorry, but those supposed 'statements' are a disgrace. They are riddled with the usual errors of fact and emotion, and some are not official positions at all, and therefore your statement is false.

So Syd, you believe that the statements and evidence put forward by Gage, Griffin, et.al, are NOT riddled with errors of fact and emotion?
I've said it over and over on this website, to examine evidence, one must look at the credibility of the source. Unless concrete evidence comes forth otherwise, I believe I will take the word of AIA, SEAoNY, and all other organizations with knowledge of the subject over the opinion of Richard Gage, shown here as he's explaining how the WTCs fell using...well, you can see for yourself....

Image
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Richard Gage and the AIA

Postby SydneyPSIder » 11 Oct 2012, 21:20

ProfWag wrote:
SydneyPSIder wrote:Thanks. Sorry, but those supposed 'statements' are a disgrace. They are riddled with the usual errors of fact and emotion, and some are not official positions at all, and therefore your statement is false.

So Syd, you believe that the statements and evidence put forward by Gage, Griffin, et.al, are NOT riddled with errors of fact and emotion?
I've said it over and over on this website, to examine evidence, one must look at the credibility of the source. Unless concrete evidence comes forth otherwise, I believe I will take the word of AIA, SEAoNY, and all other organizations with knowledge of the subject over the opinion of Richard Gage, shown here as he's explaining how the WTCs fell using...well, you can see for yourself....


But there is zero scientific analysis in 3 of the articles, and the 4th was just a puffpiece blogspot attempting to 'showcase' any 'studies' or even faintly related research that would help to put a positive spin on what is an extremely suspicious set of events.
SydneyPSIder
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: 10 Sep 2012, 18:24

Re: Richard Gage and the AIA

Postby really? » 11 Oct 2012, 21:26

The most irritating thing about not continually engaging ct'ers nonsensical argument by walking away is the the ct'er thinks your silence vindicates their beliefs.
really?
 
Posts: 1009
Joined: 06 Mar 2010, 20:58

Re: Richard Gage and the AIA

Postby ProfWag » 11 Oct 2012, 21:37

SydneyPSIder wrote:But there is zero scientific analysis in 3 of the articles, and the 4th was just a puffpiece blogspot attempting to 'showcase' any 'studies' or even faintly related research that would help to put a positive spin on what is an extremely suspicious set of events.

My references weren't for scientific analysis, Syd. My original statement was that these organizations do not support A&Efor911Truth's claims for which you asked for reference. I could easily find the scientific analysis, but why should I? All you would do is poke holes or claim they aren't valid for whatever reason. If you want to investigate how these organizations made their determinations, take a few seconds and look them up. Otherwise, keep supporting the conspiracy theories who try to use people like Lloyd England as support for their anti-U.S. Government propoganda.
And yes, you're right, really?. It is frustrating, but if we don't, then who knows what will get posted that may, or may not have merit.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

PreviousNext

Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Yahoo [Bot] and 1 guest