My Impromptu Debate with Richard Gage outside The White House

[RedIbis]

The funniest thing out of all of this...

The folks over at 911blogger.com are laughing at me because I do not have an engineering or physics degree...'cause I am sure they are all typing their criticisms from the AIA/MIT break rooms.

I thought you did a good job, and that's the proper way to go about a discussion on these subjects. You debated in good faith, had a friendly approach, and stayed away from the usual name calling, labeling, and general incivility.

[Justin39640]

TheDirector,

Linkey?? I might have a peak and see what can be added to their little bashing.

here ya go
:)
http://www.911blogger.com/node/21428

[funk de fino]

I thought you did a good job, and that's the proper way to go about a discussion on these subjects. You debated in good faith, had a friendly approach, and stayed away from the usual name calling, labeling, and general incivility.

And he did not make disgusting accusations against peoiple with no evidence to back them up.

He also did not lie. Something you cannot say.

[beachnut]

Hello,

I claim that the 3 WTC buildings collapsed due to controlled demolitions.

this does not claim to know who did it... HOWEVER; the Ex-President of Italy DOES claim to know who did it.

...
The ex-president of Italy, a conspiracy theorist with zero evidence? You can try to use hearsay to prove your delusion of controlled demolition, but you need reality based evidence.

Other than your fantasy of controlled demolition, why do you think Gage likes to spread lies about 911? I will offer some ideas later. I admire the OP author for being civil with a known liar on 911 issues. The excuses Gage has on spreading lies may include his lack of skill in engineering, he may be gullible to believe the made-up evidence of Jones, and of course the biggest excuse may be the need for food and shelter so he takes donations to support himself.

The "conspiracy theory" that is ignored is the fraud of Gage collecting money by spreading lies and unfounded conspiracy theories.

In the big picture goal is full employment; Gage has found a way to make money by selling his fraud. This may be a good thing, otherwise we would be paying his unemployment and welfare. So keep up the good work supporting Gage's 911 delusion spreading efforts; Gage's capitalism can't work without gullible people in the world. Knowledge and sound judgment exercised by all free thinking humans would destroy Gage's delusions.
Did you know this is a skeptic forum?

[BigAl]

Hello,

I claim that the 3 WTC buildings collapsed due to controlled demolitions.

this does not claim to know who did it... HOWEVER; the Ex-President of Italy DOES claim to know who did it.

---------

Former Italian President Francesco Cossiga,

You've been lied to. Cossiga doesn't believe Truth Movement claims. This was hashed out in this thread.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=3273540#post3273540

[Grizzly Bear]

The funniest thing out of all of this...

The folks over at 911blogger.com are laughing at me because I do not have an engineering or physics degree...'cause I am sure they are all typing their criticisms from the AIA/MIT break rooms.
That's okay, Gage's degree doesn't help him. If Gage were taking university-level courses he wouldn't be passing with the crap he's parading. As it is he would fail structures by not being able to understand simple column failure.

[newton3376]

I live not too far from a fairly large Air Force base here in Brevard county. Recently, when I had gone out surfing, I noticed a C-130 doing touch-n-goes. He was flying (what appeared to be ) about 200 feet over my head. I always keep my camera in the truck, and went and retrieved it.

As the plane would come over, I had a great silouette of it against the rising sun. About 5 minutes after I took the pictures, 3 guys from the AFSF(Air Force Security Forces) asking if they could look through the pictures I had taken. I agreed, as I didn't think it would be much of a big deal.

He commented on how great of a pic it was, but that I would have to delete it. I asked why, and he said to prevent any intelligence gathering.

So, I deleted it. Who waas I to argue with 3 guys with big guns??

I think this is the logic. Especially after 9/11, security got very tight. Everyone was on edge, even 6 years after. It doesn't really make much sense, as it can be seen clearly from GoogleEarth.

I find that somewhat disturbing....

Were there any signs/indicators telling you that you couldn't snap photos?

Was it a public beach?

I would have had a discussion with these guys first and asked some questions because I can't imagine (actually I can) what Intel could be gathered from such photos...

If they were conducting operations and had something on the plane that could be identified with a photo shot from someones personal camera then someone screwed up big time and should be reported.

[CptColumbo]

Hello,

I claim that the 3 WTC buildings collapsed due to controlled demolitions.

this does not claim to know who did it... HOWEVER; the Ex-President of Italy DOES claim to know who did it.
IIRC at least 3 (of the 4 living) former and the current President of the United States of America believe that it was 19 hijackers stealing 4 planes. I am unaware of President Carter's view on the subject.

At least one former Prime Minister of the United Kingdom believes it was 19 hijackers stealing 4 planes.

What is your point?
Just FYI, StephenJWilson won't be answering your questions as he has been banned from the JREF forums.

[MSgtWeiss]

You must PRESERVE the evidence (not just find it). This means you KEEP IT, so that IF There is a trial, both sides in court can examine and cross examine the evidence.

So you maintain that the entire collapsed buildng must be preserved in situ, indefinitely, and not just the parts deemed relevant by the investigators?

I've been involved in two arson investigations, and in neither case did the investigators seal off the entire site indefinitely, nor did they save every bit of debris for future court use.

In one case they carefully cut out the sections that were deemed to contain accelerant residue, chopped out a few more random samples in other parts of the debris, and let us begin demolition and reconstruction within 48 hrs. That was also sufficient for a conviction for arson.

In the other they just photographed the relevant areas (shorted wires & outlet at the point of origin), and the bulldozers were leveling the house within a day or two.

If there is some legal requirement to preserve the entire area, instead of just the relevant evidence, please quote it. I know of no investigative unit, State or Federal, that follows this alleged rule.

We'd also be interested in whether Hanjour's lawyers claimed, at any point, about an insufficiency of evidence at Ground Zero or the Pentagon, or that investigators violated procedure. It certainly seemed to be adequate for conviction.

[MSgtWeiss]

In my last post, not yet appearing on this thread, I referred to the conviction of Hanjour -- rather problematic, considering that it's hard to indict a corpse. I meant Moussaoui, of course.

[triforcharity]

I find that somewhat disturbing....

Were there any signs/indicators telling you that you couldn't snap photos?

Was it a public beach?

I would have had a discussion with these guys first and asked some questions because I can't imagine (actually I can) what Intel could be gathered from such photos...

If they were conducting operations and had something on the plane that could be identified with a photo shot from someones personal camera then someone screwed up big time and should be reported.

Yes, there is one obscure sign on the beach that says you may not snap photographs of incoming aircraft. It is spaced about 100 yards apart, and I had not noticed them before.

It is also not a public beach per se. It is owned by the USAF.

Here is the beach that I was at. Notice the closeness to the end of the runway?? I think they reason they don't want people taking pictures, is so they cannot use it for some covert operation.

http://i63.photobucket.com/albums/h131/triathlete247/whereiwas.jpg

[triforcharity]

Good catch. I was like, Wait, what??

Good call. Hey, but at least he wouldn't put up much of a defense!!!

[HeyLeroy]

IMHO, you were far too polite; you let him have his talking-points, and when you tried to rebut, you let him get away with interrupting your response. This is a typical truther ADHD tactic; they just want to blather on and on and never let you get in an opposing word.

But otherwise very well done, I might add.

[waypastvne]

For the Director. Just so you know, the video showed up at Above Top Secret. The title of the thread is,

Richard Gage argues 9/11 with a box of rocks in front of the White House


YouTube Link


What does it say about our education system when the dude with sunglasses is actually a high school history teacher? Definitely want that guy teaching the new 9/11 curriculum to all our youngin's.

[ImANiceGuy]

Pretty weak debate IMO....

I think by asking him about the "pull it" line, it appeared you were changing the subject to a more manageable topic.

Your description of the debate is a little over the top.....

...I felt that using the evidence that I researched years ago and through civil debate, I was able to completely debunk the best of the best of the leaders of the 9/11 Truth Movement. Also, I believe that down deep inside, Richard could hear where I was coming from. I hope that someday he can ‘reformed’ as well.

Glad you had fun though!

[A W Smith]

For the Director. Just so you know, the video showed up at Above Top Secret. The title of the thread is,


I never knew Richard Gage's cardboard box contained rocks.

[The Director]

Pretty weak debate IMO....

I think by asking him about the "pull it" line, it appeared you were changing the subject to a more manageable topic.

Your description of the debate is a little over the top.....



Glad you had fun though!

I referenced to 'pull it' because at the time I was thinking about Brian Dunning's "Proof By Verbosity" reasoning. Giving me "fact" after "fact" after "fact" that (even if it was my career to study this stuff) it would take me all day to address all of his points.

So, I could tell by Richard's body language that he was leaving soon. So, I managed to get in something that had always bothered me.

The debate weak? Sure. I left "debunking" years ago because I found that it was impossible to "cure" folks like Richard. I was incredibly rusty. But a few years ago, I would have simply have dismissed him as crazy, or even worse, I would be just like him as I am a former "truther" (something that the YouTube version of the clip conveniently leaves out.)

[triforcharity]

He takes them out of his skull and stores them there for safe keeping. :D

[blissentia]

Unfortunately, the Director lies utterly about the interaction. You can see the debate here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKFiGfW6aGY

[UNLoVedRebel]

In what way did he lie?

[Tony Szamboti]

So you maintain that the entire collapsed buildng must be preserved in situ, indefinitely, and not just the parts deemed relevant by the investigators?

I've been involved in two arson investigations, and in neither case did the investigators seal off the entire site indefinitely, nor did they save every bit of debris for future court use.

In one case they carefully cut out the sections that were deemed to contain accelerant residue, chopped out a few more random samples in other parts of the debris, and let us begin demolition and reconstruction within 48 hrs. That was also sufficient for a conviction for arson.

In the other they just photographed the relevant areas (shorted wires & outlet at the point of origin), and the bulldozers were leveling the house within a day or two.

If there is some legal requirement to preserve the entire area, instead of just the relevant evidence, please quote it. I know of no investigative unit, State or Federal, that follows this alleged rule.


So what do you say to the fact that none of the steel from WTC 7 was saved for the investigation?

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

I found what is "part" of the video of this debate with Richard Gage:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VKFiGfW6aGY

[Liszt]

http://eclipptv.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=11676

I've never heard of the Debunking Director - JREF username - but then again, I don't spent much time in this section (or even this subject)

Both Gage and Kevin are polite during this entertaining little spar, which makes a nice change.

Video is 7 minutes.

[Bell]

http://eclipptv.com/viewVideo.php?video_id=11676

I've never heard of the Debunking Director - JREF username - but then again, I don't spent much time in this section (or even this subject)

Both Gage and Kevin are polite during this entertaining little spar, which makes a nice change.

Video is 7 minutes.

Thanks for posting. I hope Kevin introduces himself here.

It was indeed a polite conversation, nice to watch. Gage seems like a polite man in this video. To bad he wastes his intelligence on this 9/11 inside job nonsense.

[SRW]

Thanks for posting. I hope Kevin introduces himself here.

It was indeed a polite conversation, nice to watch. Gage seems like a polite man in this video. To bad he wastes his intelligence on this 9/11 inside job nonsense.

He introduces himself here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=150677&highlight=Gage+Kevin)

[Bell]

He introduces himself here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=150677&highlight=Gage+Kevin)

Thanks SRW!

[Liszt]

He introduces himself here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=150677&highlight=Gage+Kevin)

Looks like the event happened a year ago, but the video was only uploaded yesterday.

Well worth reading that thread (the O.P.) after watching the video.

[Liszt]

It's sort of a shame that these threads were merged, and few people are going to watch the video, now buried at post #273

The Director, in his first post, claimed

"I felt that using the evidence that I researched years ago and through civil debate, I was able to completely debunk the best of the best of the leaders of the 9/11 Truth Movement. Also, I believe that down deep inside, Richard could hear where I was coming from. I hope that someday he can ‘reformed’ as well."


Anyone else get that impression? I don't think Kevin debunked Gage very well here.