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

Live Richard Gage Webcast Today at First Parish

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: Live Richard Gage Webcast Today at First Parish

Postby Scepcop » 16 Oct 2009, 07:23

ProfWag wrote:
NinjaPuppy wrote:
ProfWag wrote:Oops, hopefully ya'll know what I meant...
I mean, I've never seen Bill O'Reilly's legs... ;-)

Well I have, and they ain't a pretty sight. http://media.photobucket.com/image/bill ... Loofah.gif

Ugh. But since while we're on the subject, O'Reilly is another one who appears: "likeable, professional, honest, sincere and convincing."
So did Jim Jones. So did Peter Popov. So did OJ. and on and on and on.


LOL you think so? Your people reading skills must suck then. FYI, O'Reilly comes across as an arrogant opinionated ass. Only really conservative people like him. Many on youtube say they want to sock him. Totally different personality from Gage. Jim Jones looked creepy and deluded. He made extreme claims and asked you to take them on faith. Gage doesn't do that. He presents facts and solid arguments based on evidence. Peter Popov sounded like a BSer and made extreme claims that he could heal people if they had faith. You can't compare that to Gage. Gage does not make extreme claims or claims to have divine powers and asks you to take them on faith. That is a stupid comparison! It doesn't say well of you guys to not be able to see the difference there. None of those guys you mention makes solid logical arguments anyway.
“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: Live Richard Gage Webcast Today at First Parish

Postby Scepcop » 16 Oct 2009, 07:28

ProfWag wrote:Ahhh yes, he is. But many many thousands of people think he is wonderful.
Here's a fun Inside Edition feature on him that's kind of eye opening...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYdlX_Wn1K4


So what? I can name many wonderful people who are perceived as wonderful and who REALLY ARE wonderful people. So what's the point? Would that prove that Gage is legit? Sure there are con artists out there that seem likeable and trustworthy. I know that. But that doesn't mean Gage is one. Agreed?

So what's your point?

Bottom line is that my people reading skills are right most of the time. And the fact is that Gage makes good solid logical arguments based on evidence. He's not a dumb guy. If he wasn't convincing, he wouldn't be able to get 900 architects and engineers to agree with him. Duh.

Use your common sense.
“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: Live Richard Gage Webcast Today at First Parish

Postby Scepcop » 16 Oct 2009, 07:33

Nostradamus wrote:The vibes claims discussed in regards to serial killers.

Ultimately, it is virtually impossible to detect a serial killer. Many seem to be quiet normal in their everyday lives, only some actually tend to act differently to the general population.


Ted Bundy: He was attractive, smart, and had a future in politics. He was also one of the most prolific serial killers in U.S. history.


John Wayne Gacy: It is no surprise that John Wayne Gacy, Jr. was admired and liked by most who had known him. He was a sharp businessman who had spent his time, when not building up his contracting company, hosting elaborate street parties for friends and neighbors, dressing as a clown and entertaining children at local hospitals and immersing himself in organizations such as the Jaycees, working to make his community a better place to live. People who knew Gacy thought of him as a generous, friendly and hard-working man, devoted to his family and community. However, there was another side to Gacy that few had ever witnessed...


Albert Fish: This gentle-looking, benevolent grandfather cleverly lured children to their death, then devised recipes to eat them. This cannibal model for Hannibal Lecter is a study in criminal psychology and a true enigma. His wife thought him to be a wonderful husband and his children believed him to be a model father.


Vibes don't cut it and they certain are not a part of a true skeptics investigation of a claim. Vibes are a tool of the pseudoskeptic attempting to avoid the actual issues.


So what? Gage is not a serial killer. So what does this have to do with anything? This is a total red herring.

How would you like me to look for reasons to compare you to Hitler? Sheesh.

Vibes do cut it. Most of the vibes I get from people do turn out to be CORRECT when verified or when time proves me right later. I make guesses about people based on vibes, and they usually turn out to be correct. Other people who read vibes well also agree, otherwise they wouldn't rely on their skills if they were not right most of the time.

No one is infallible, yeah, but MOST OF THE TIME, vibes are accurate. If they weren't, I wouldn't depend on them. This is a classic example of how you guys look for anything that's not perfect or flawless (what is perfect and flawless anyway?) as an excuse to try to discredit something.
“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: Live Richard Gage Webcast Today at First Parish

Postby Nostradamus » 16 Oct 2009, 08:31

The reviews on google video all say that Gage won the debate. Roberts is a tour guide for crying out loud, not a scientist. What qualifies him?


The reviews on google mean nothing. Gage lost. He lost big. He was shown to be wrong time and time again.

If a tour guide for crying out loud can out debate Gage, then it shows how poor Gage is.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: Live Richard Gage Webcast Today at First Parish

Postby Nostradamus » 16 Oct 2009, 08:35

Bottom line is that my people reading skills are right most of the time. And the fact is that Gage makes good solid logical arguments based on evidence. He's not a dumb guy. If he wasn't convincing, he wouldn't be able to get 900 architects and engineers to agree with him. Duh.


Bottom line that you have no proof of your people reading skills.
Bottom line is that your people reading skills are immaterial. They only show you to be a pseudoskeptic.

Gage's areguments are not based on evidence. They are either misrepresentations or outright lies.

Getting 900 people to sign up is nothing.

Use your common sense.

Try being something other than a pseudoskeptic.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: Live Richard Gage Webcast Today at First Parish

Postby Nostradamus » 16 Oct 2009, 08:42

So what? Gage is not a serial killer. So what does this have to do with anything? This is a total red herring.

Red herring? LOL. No. I am showing you examples of people using charisma to get what they want.

How would you like me to look for reasons to compare you to Hitler? Sheesh.

LOL. Go ahead. It is your nature, the nature of a pseudoskeptic to do that instead of answering questions posed to you.

Vibes do cut it. Most of the vibes I get from people do turn out to be CORRECT when verified or when time proves me right later.

Just as you make an untestable claim of dubious value or importance I choose to make the claim that you are hardly ever correct.

Vibes are NOT ACCURATE most of the time as you claim. That is an untested delusion. Why don't you stick to the facts? I believe it is because you have no idea what Gage talks about and that you rely on this vibes claim to cover up your lack of knowledge or interest in determining what is correct.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: Live Richard Gage Webcast Today at First Parish

Postby Nostradamus » 16 Oct 2009, 08:44

He's not a dumb guy.


I didn't say he is dumb. To say he is dumb would undermine my claim that he is a fraud. He has to know that he is lying to be a fraud. If you want to claim he is dumb to undermine my claim of fraud then go ahead.
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

Re: Live Richard Gage Webcast Today at First Parish

Postby ProfWag » 16 Oct 2009, 21:37

Your counter-arguments, claims, and mis-informative videos are exhausting Scepcop. Those of us who think your conspiracy theory is a crock o’ crap have shown you time and time again that the arguments he (and others) has presented do not stand up to scrutiny. None of them, actually. My take on Gage is that he may well in fact feel there were controlled demolitions. He may firmly believe it! He may actually be totally sincere in his character (I’m not convinced and also believe he is a fraud or at best, willing to present invalid information, but I’m not arguing that point here.) The evidence remains that his points do not stand up to proper investigative research or even common sense.
I provided the following link in another thread that shows how science has proven that the buildings did not fall via the result of a controlled demolition: However, you completely ignored it and did not respond. Why? It’s because it’s proof that Gage’s information does not stand up to review. Instead, you want to claim a silly flow chart is “scientific.” Again, here’s the link that I would like for you to read. I already know you won’t because it doesn’t mesh with your ideas. http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/Bazant_ ... Did_No.pdf
Wag
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Live Richard Gage Webcast Today at First Parish

Postby ProfWag » 16 Oct 2009, 21:47

Nostradamus wrote:
The reviews on google video all say that Gage won the debate. Roberts is a tour guide for crying out loud, not a scientist. What qualifies him?


The reviews on google mean nothing. Gage lost. He lost big. He was shown to be wrong time and time again.

If a tour guide for crying out loud can out debate Gage, then it shows how poor Gage is.

Here's some background on that debate from Mark Roberts' side of the story:
Dan K. Stanley was joking (don't know why). I don't expect the shows to be on the web for a couple of weeks. Gage had them videotaped on his end. He'll send the tape to the Hardfire producer, who will combine it with the tape shot in the NY studio...a good idea which I assume was Gage's. He was connected by telephone to us. There were a few audio glitches.

The host was John Clifton, an amiable guy. I had thought he was merely sympathetic to truther claims, but he's actually a a hardcore truther. He doesn't seem to be aware of much of the evidence on the...er...evidence-based side. I kept inviting him to check out my website. He didn't seem to go out of his way to show bias against me, though. I talked with him quite a bit before and after the taping but don't think I made a dent. He's a believer in many conspiracy theories, with the overriding belief that the government controls so much information that it's impossible to know what's true. Well, the government doesn't control the physical laws of the universe, which are what falsify Richard Gage's claims.

It was originally to be one show, about the three WTC skyscraper collapses, with Gage choosing the topics. Most of my preparation was about the Twin Towers, since that's what Gage spends most of his time on and makes his most extreme claims about.

To give the show some structure and to insure equal time, last week I proposed this format:

1) Mr. Gage would choose his five best pieces of evidence in favor of controlled demolition. I would not know the topics in advance.

2) Each topic would receive a two-minute summary of evidence by the first presenter, then a two-minute rebuttal, then a 15-second response by the first presenter.

3) We would alternate being the first to present on a topic, to avoid the same person doing a rebuttal each time (assuming that I'd learn the topics when the show started). Considering overruns and topic introductions by John, that format should have taken about 24 minutes, leaving about 3 minutes for guest introductions and other topics.

That proposal was rejected.

Before we took our seats, I was informed by John Cifton that the subject was going to be restricted to WTC 7. I was not pleased by this, since I had prepared to discuss all WTC topics and had done a Hardfire show with Ron and Arthur Scheuerman about WTC 7 in February...for which we could find no prominent truther opponent. I would rather have covered new ground. However, since my policy is that I'll debate any prominent non-insane truther on their own turf, I went along with this change of plans.

As it turned out, producer Gary Popkin made time for two shows, and we did cover some Twin Towers ground in the second, although not in the detail necessary. By that time the debate had gotten pretty heated, and Gage was jumping around from claim to claim a bit. In retrospect, one show would have been almost comically insufficient, so I thank Gary for squeezing two in. Three would have been far better, but then I'd be wanting four.... As I explained to someone yesterday, I could easily do a 10-hour solo presentation on all Gage gets wrong, with no preparation. Condensing everything to a few minutes is difficult.

It was amusing hearing Gage being coached about WTC 7 specifics before the show. He didn't know we could hear him and at that point he couldn't hear us. Let's just say that he was...confused about important points with only two minutes to go.

Gage requested just before the show started that we adhere to my suggested 2-minute presentation format after all...too bad I hadn't prepared for that format. But Gage didn't want to alternate being the first to present on a topic as I had suggested. This put me at a bit of a disadvantage since I had to always respond to what he said on the show, as opposed to being able to raise the many other – and nuttier – things he says about each topic in his other presentations. There was no time to argue this point since the show was starting.

John began the show with a statement that consisted of two quotes by Ron Paul, one of which was misleading and irrelevant (the 9/11 Commission didn't discuss the collapse of WTC 7), and the other of which was wrong and irrelevant (Bin Ladens were flown out of the US after 9/11 before airspace was open to others). We were not asked to comment on those quotes. Because I didn't want to immediately embarrass a host who was already biased against me, I held my tongue. That was not easy to do.

I don't think we adhered closely to the 2-minute debate/rebuttal format, but I could be wrong about that. These shows go by so fast that they're mostly a blur. The second show was more free-form.

Gage used part of his time to play vldeos that we in New York couldn't see and for the most part couldn't hear. Although I know the context of the videos, I would rather have dealt with Gage directly.

Unlike the other Hardfire shows I've done, each of these shows was interrupted midway by a promotion for the New York Libertarian Party...more time lost.

I never got to use my two most devastating responses because Gage didn't raise the topics. I was very surprised, since he'd raised them in every presentation I'd seen him give. Perhaps he understands his vulnerability there.

The sheer volume of Gage's wrongness can be mind-numbing: in his online Powerpoint presentation I cataloged 311 false statements, 114 misleading statements, and 137 logical fallacies. There were lots of important points I missed during the shows, but that's always the case and I don't kick myself too much about it. People will be directed to my website, where I'll have a page dedicated to these shows and links for investigating each claim. I wanted to have a graphic added for bolo's ae911truth.info site, but the producer wouldn't allow it since I hadn't mentioned it during the shows.

People shouldn't get too excited about seeing the shows. Although the debate got heated at times, I was bored stiff throughout since Gage was being more cautious than usual and no new ground was covered. With a few exceptions, they're the same old claims that had been debunked long before AE911truth existed.

There's quite a bit of editing to be done after Gary gets Gage's tape, so I don't imagine the shows will be up soon. Although it took getting him a sympathetic host, Gage gets credit for showing. It's been over a year since anyone's agreed to debate me. A couple of times, after he said certain evidence didn't exist and I explained that it did, he seemed open to reviewing that. A glimmer of light in the dark, perhaps.

–Mark

P.S. I find the fact that there's a three-page thread devoted to a show that hasn't aired yet to be...odd.

Oh, and the BBC show on WTC 7 is to be aired July 6. Looking forward to that one.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Live Richard Gage Webcast Today at First Parish

Postby ProfWag » 16 Oct 2009, 21:53

Here's some more information on the accuracy of Mr. Gage:

"–Gage repeatedly claims that “They would bring up these multi-ton chunks of this previously molten substance, which turns out to be iron.” This is simply a lie. Gage can name no Ground Zero worker who claims this. Nor can Gage show where any formerly molten material was tested to determine its composition. I spoke with Dave Peraza, the engineer in charge of all Ground Zero cleanup: "I never saw pools or lakes of molten, or previously molten, steel. Neither in the subgrade levels, nor as material that was loaded onto trucks by the grapplers and cranes."

And more:


Yet more Richard Gage lies: experts agree with him?

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

One of the most reprehensible things this scumbag Gage does in his PowerPoint presentation is lie about legitimate, reknowned professionals supporting his claims. Here are some of the people he cites in a section called "Experts Agree."

Gage repeatedly cites Mike Taylor, the head of the National Demolition Association, in support of his claims. Here’s what Mike Taylor told me when I asked him about that: “The fall of the structures occurred because of a variety of circumstances ALL related to the crashing of the two airplanes into them. Numerous studies have been conducted by various governmental and independent entities to back this claim."

Gage cites fire scientist James Quintiere as being critical of the NIST report. He fails to cite Dr. Quintiere's conclusion, which is that towers likely would have collapsed from the fires alone, even without the structural and fireproofing damage caused by airliners hitting them.

Gage cites reknowned structural engineer Matthys Levy, who worked independently on the collapse investigations as saying, "It looks like a managed demolition.” Here’s what Levy actually says: "SOME people might thinks this: it LOOKS like a controlled demolition. But it has NOTHING to do with it."

In his slide show Gage says about structural engineer Ronald Hamburger, “Even FEMA's Structural Engineer Questions the Collapses.” Perhaps Gage should have attended Ronald Hamburger’s ANTI-conspiracy talk about the collapse of the WTC buildings at the Center for Inquiry in San Francisco.

Gage cites explosives expert Van Romero in support of his claims. Here’s what Romero says: "Certainly the fire is what caused the building to fail."

Gage takes Dutch demolitions contractor Danny Jowenko’s word as authoritative that building 7 was brought down by explosives. I assume that Gage ALSO takes Jowenko's word as authoritative that the Twin Towers were NOT brought down by explosives.
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Live Richard Gage Webcast Today at First Parish

Postby ProfWag » 16 Oct 2009, 21:55

And even more false representations or complete nonsense. Gage's website puts out so much junk he can't keep them straight any more:

Here's what Gage's "expert" structural engineers say. All quotes are from Gage's website. These are the words of his best and brightest.

–Charles Pegelow thinks nuclear weapons destroyed the towers. No, I'm not kidding.

–Robert T. Mote thinks the tower collapses started from the bottom: "I could never understand the 'convenient' vertical collapse at the BASE due to an extreme event at height."

–Structural engineer Dennis Kollar says, “For me the most convincing aspect that the 911 collapse was a controlled demolition is the recorded explosions on the 9/11 Eyewitness DVD.” The "recorded explosions" he's referring to are wind noise captured by the camera in Hoboken, a few miles away from the WTC. That should be staggeringly obvious to anyone who has seen footage from close to the WTC, where what would be absolutely enormous "explosions" are not captured by any microphones.

–Structural engineer Michael Donley says, "I have read the FEMA report and conclude that it is incomplete at best and a cover-up at worst.” The FEMA report? Welcome to 2002, Mr. Donley. You might try reading the 10,000 page NIST report. Can't blame you, though. Richard has led by example and not bothered to read the NIST report either. (Yes, I can prove that.)

–Engineer Edward Knesl says, “We do not know the phenomenon of the high rise building to disintegrate internally faster than the free fall of the debris coming down from the top.” Faster than freefall! He' hasn't even bothered to review videos of the collapses.

Can these people possibly be any less competent?

Actually, yes. Here's what AE 911 Truth engineer Donald Messerlian believes: “Seismographic evidence proved pre-planted explosives destroyed WTC 1, 2 and building 7 before the planes struck buildings 1 & 2.”

Right. The three WTC buildings were destroyed before the planes hit. In the same vein of disturbed fantasy, Richard's aerospace engineer is a "no-planer":

–"After performing some in-depth research on this subject, I have come to the conclusion that no commercial airplanes impacted the two WTC Towers. No commercial plane impacted the Pentagon. No commercial aircraft buried itself in Pennsylvania terra firma."
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Live Richard Gage Webcast Today at First Parish

Postby ProfWag » 16 Oct 2009, 22:38

Here is a you tube video pointing out 3 falsehoods from Mr. Gage. I won't go so far to say they are lies as the person on the film, but I will say they are either lies or he just never did research. There are many more which I will continue to post as these ridiculous conspiracy theories continue to get pushed through on this "paranormal" website.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10YTDOdyju0&feature=fvw
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Live Richard Gage Webcast Today at First Parish

Postby NinjaPuppy » 16 Oct 2009, 23:03

ProfWag wrote:Here is a you tube video pointing out 3 falsehoods from Mr. Gage. I won't go so far to say they are lies as the person on the film, but I will say they are either lies or he just never did research. There are many more which I will continue to post as these ridiculous conspiracy theories continue to get pushed through on this "paranormal" website.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10YTDOdyju0&feature=fvw

Ummmm, I think I may (personally) know the guy who made (narrated) this video.
User avatar
NinjaPuppy
 
Posts: 4002
Joined: 28 Jul 2009, 20:44

Re: Live Richard Gage Webcast Today at First Parish

Postby ProfWag » 16 Oct 2009, 23:12

NinjaPuppy wrote:
ProfWag wrote:Here is a you tube video pointing out 3 falsehoods from Mr. Gage. I won't go so far to say they are lies as the person on the film, but I will say they are either lies or he just never did research. There are many more which I will continue to post as these ridiculous conspiracy theories continue to get pushed through on this "paranormal" website.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=10YTDOdyju0&feature=fvw

Ummmm, I think I may (personally) know the guy who made (narrated) this video.

Really? Is that a good thing or a bad thing?
User avatar
ProfWag
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: 05 Aug 2009, 03:54

Re: Live Richard Gage Webcast Today at First Parish

Postby Nostradamus » 16 Oct 2009, 23:42

Excellent posts ProfWag. I love reading the nukes claim every time I read it.

There is a HardFire show in which a no-planer tries to show that all of the videos were faked and that no planes hit the buildings. This is just weird.

Here's the link.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... lDA&hl=en#
Scimitars were not available - beware January 19, 2038 is upon us.
User avatar
Nostradamus
 
Posts: 1761
Joined: 08 Aug 2009, 14:08

PreviousNext

Return to Conspiracies / Cover Ups

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron