Did the Jan 23 Gage-Craig debate happen ?

BigAl · 26th January 2010, 05:28 AM

The AE911 website says that last Saturday the there was to be a debate. Did it happen and is there audio or video available?

Quote:

Jan 23, 2010

Live Debate: Architect Richard Gage, AIA, vs. Explosives Expert Ron Craig, Round Two

http://www.ae911truth.org/info/151

vinniem · 26th January 2010, 05:39 AM

Originally Posted by BigAl

The AE911 website says that last Saturday the there was to be a debate. Did it happen and is there audio or video available?

It most certainly did happen. The audio is in the AE911truth watch thread.

carlitos · 26th January 2010, 02:34 PM

try this - http://www.ae911truth.org/media/1001...Craig-2of2.mp3

Walter Ego · 26th January 2010, 03:41 PM

Originally Posted by carlitos

try this - http://www.ae911truth.org/media/1001...Craig-2of2.mp3

I found a video version that I put up on my blog today.

http://911vids.blogspot.com/2010/01/...rd-syrett.html

T.A.M. · 26th January 2010, 03:54 PM

I am guessing the debate went something like this...

Gage: Did you know X happened, proving it was an inside job
Craig: actually, thats not what happened, here is what happened.
Gage: Did you know that Y happened, proving it was an inside job
Craig: actually, thats not what happened, here is what happened.
Gage: Did you know that Z happened, proving it was an inside job
Craig: Whacks head repeatedly off of desk.

TAM

Edx · 26th January 2010, 04:29 PM

Its not such a great job for Gage screw ups IMO, but its great if you combine it with the previous Gage interview in terms of contradictions. I'll have to make another video showing some more stupid comments by Gage doing this.

Unfortunately, while Ron provides excellent rebuttals to explosives and firefighter arguments, IE his area of expertise, he doesn't do well in rebutting Gage's other claims.

For example Gage used the Chief Palmer quote that Floor 78 had only two isolated pockets of fire and Ron doesn't rebut it, clearly he hadn't heard that before. He also hadn't heard of the microspheres, that didn't look good and started to deny they existed. He claimed there was no molten metal AT ALL rather than saying it was most likely Aluminium if it was anything. Gage also claimed that all the steel was shipped off before it was looked at, again Ron doesn't counter it with the fact that it was. He also had no response to the sulfurization-effect of some of the steel members that Gage kept going on about. Ron also doesn't explain the dust cloud. He lets Gage get away with the stupid phrase "pyroclastic cloud", he even uses it himself, and doesn't talk about how most of that dust would be the dry wall not concrete and how even building collapses without explosives still create large dust clouds.

Ron in my opinion also didn't know enough about nano-thermite to show that Gage is misrepresenting it, you can glean that impression if you try hard but you have to understand the main point about explosives not being able to do what Gage claims they can do first and remember what Ron said earlier but acting ignorant in respect to nano-thermite to truther's just means they will ignore everything he says about it since they've then decided he doesn't know what it is and so they can still justify believing it has all these mythical properties.

One thing I did notice was Gage early on says they never made the claim that the firefighters surrounding the glowing hole in the ground was evidence of thermite! I'll need to listen again, but that was funny.

vinniem · 26th January 2010, 05:15 PM

The bit that really surprised me was that Craig seems now to be fully behind a new wtc7 investigation.

I have heard both debates. I think Gage won the first and Craig won the second. I think Craig was unprepared for the first debate but he seemed very clued up in the second one.

Except that he denied the existence of the microspheres.

LashL · 26th January 2010, 07:11 PM

Originally Posted by BigAl

The AE911 website says that last Saturday the there was to be a debate. Did it happen and is there audio or video available?

There was no debate on Jan. 23; that's Gage's two week late spin on the debate that occurred on Jan. 10.

Edx · 26th January 2010, 07:22 PM

Originally Posted by vinniem

The bit that really surprised me was that Craig seems now to be fully behind a new wtc7 investigation.

And various scientists have a problem with the NIST report but not in the way truther's do, they have specific criticisms about how fire caused the buildings to collapse. I think even Mackey said he doesn't agree with every detail.

To think saying Ron wanting to see another investigation relates to Gage wanting a new investigation is absurd.

Ron clarifies near the end that he doesn't think it was the failure of column 79 so much as the connections themselves. Whether he is right doesn't matter, what matters is his disagreement with NIST is comparatively extremely minor.

No doubt he will still be used to claim that even Ron Craig, explosives expert, wants to see a new investigation anyway.

Quote:

I think Craig was unprepared for the first debate but he seemed very clued up in the second one..

Not enough, there was plenty basic stuff he could known as I pointed out.

LashL · 26th January 2010, 08:32 PM

Originally Posted by Edx

No doubt he will still be used to claim that even Ron Craig, explosives expert, wants to see a new investigation anyway.

Ron thinks that the inaptly self-named "truthers" are completely looneytunes, and does not support their alleged call for a "new investigation" into the collapses of the WTC buildings as Gage claims.

It is complete nonsense for Gage to suggest otherwise, as Ron does not in any way agree with Gage's stupidity. The only "new investigation" that he supports is that which the rest of the rational among us support a "new investigation"; that is to say, "If truthers want a new investigation, get on with it already and leave the rest of us out of it."

Edx · 26th January 2010, 08:35 PM

Originally Posted by LashL

Ron thinks that the inaptly self-named "truthers" are completely looneytunes, and does not support their alleged call for a "new investigation" into the collapses of the WTC buildings as Gage claims.

It is complete nonsense for Gage to suggest otherwise, as Ron does not in any way agree with Gage's stupidity. The only "new investigation" that he supports is that which the rest of the rational among us support a "new investigation"; that is to say, "If truthers want a new investigation, get on with it already and leave the rest of us out of it."

I wonder if they will put him on Patriots 4 911 Truth like they do with the dead victims?

LashL · 26th January 2010, 08:37 PM

Originally Posted by Edx

I wonder if they will put him on Patriots 4 911 Truth like they do with the dead victims?

I wouldn't be surprised in the least if they did. The scumbags at Patriots 4 911 Truth are even (slightly) more egregiously disgusting and pathetic than Gage and Co.

R.Mackey · 26th January 2010, 09:16 PM

Originally Posted by Edx

And various scientists have a problem with the NIST report but not in the way truther's do, they have specific criticisms about how fire caused the buildings to collapse. I think even Mackey said he doesn't agree with every detail.

You can read my criticisms of NIST's WTC 1 and 2 report in my whitepaper. I devote an entire chapter to contrasting the different approaches and results, along with my specific criticisms. Another chapter covers scientific progress after NIST finished its report. And I treat in-depth criticism from Eric Douglas in detail, agreeing with a good portion of it.

But these are just details. Think of it like this: Suppose one research team decides the average American male is 175 cm tall. Another team decides the correct answer is 178 cm. And then the Truthers claim that since the teams don't agree, their own guess that the real figure is 6,252 cm is just as valid.

The microspheres, melted metal, etc., these details have obvious and simple explanations. The only reason Truthers dwell on them is because, through repetition, they've found things that other people are less likely to have heard of, and makes Truthers sound the least idiotic at first blush. It's just what they do. No need to worry, that is also all that they do.

Seymour Butz · 26th January 2010, 09:45 PM

Originally Posted by Edx

Ron clarifies near the end that he doesn't think it was the failure of column 79 so much as the connections themselves.

Isn't this what NIST believes happened anyways?

The floor beam expanded and broke the girder to column connection, which then resulted in a floor failure, which then broke other floor/girder connections, which led to the collapse of 79, which led to the horizontal progression, which resulted in the global collapse.

It is a twoof lie that 7 collapsed as a result of col 79's failure. This implies that it failed to heat. This is the lie they tell so that they can use their incredulity about the fire's size.

vinniem · 27th January 2010, 01:38 AM

Originally Posted by LashL

Ron thinks that the inaptly self-named "truthers" are completely looneytunes, and does not support their alleged call for a "new investigation" into the collapses of the WTC buildings as Gage claims.

It is complete nonsense for Gage to suggest otherwise, as Ron does not in any way agree with Gage's stupidity. The only "new investigation" that he supports is that which the rest of the rational among us support a "new investigation"; that is to say, "If truthers want a new investigation, get on with it already and leave the rest of us out of it."

Ron does not think truthers are looney tunes. During the debate he congratulated Gage on his work and his desire to inform people about it. Ron does not seem like the typical knee-jerk debunker that resides here. I notice he isn't a member here. I ouldn't encourage him to join because you might have another Frank Greening style embarassment.

beachnut · 27th January 2010, 01:53 AM

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

You can read my criticisms of NIST's WTC 1 and 2 report in my whitepaper. I devote an entire chapter to contrasting the different approaches and results, along with my specific criticisms. Another chapter covers scientific progress after NIST finished its report. And I treat in-depth criticism from Eric Douglas in detail, agreeing with a good portion of it.

But these are just details. Think of it like this: Suppose one research team decides the average American male is 175 cm tall. Another team decides the correct answer is 178 cm. And then the Truthers claim that since the teams don't agree, their own guess that the real figure is 6,252 cm is just as valid.

The microspheres, melted metal, etc., these details have obvious and simple explanations. The only reason Truthers dwell on them is because, through repetition, they've found things that other people are less likely to have heard of, and makes Truthers sound the least idiotic at first blush. It's just what they do. No need to worry, that is also all that they do.

Highlights of the anti-intellectual movement of 911 truth which spews delusions based on hearsay and lies. A fringe few who can only talk and are hung up on "debunkers".

Have to grade posts by truthers by how many times they say, "debunker". Their red badge of stupid ideas summed up by their lack of evidence and delusional conclusions.

T.A.M. · 27th January 2010, 04:08 AM

Originally Posted by vinniem

Ron does not think truthers are looney tunes. During the debate he congratulated Gage on his work and his desire to inform people about it. Ron does not seem like the typical knee-jerk debunker that resides here. I notice he isn't a member here. I ouldn't encourage him to join because you might have another Frank Greening style embarassment.

You obviously have not heard of being polite. The "polite" thing to do, when entering or participating in a debate, is to find something good to say about your opponent, no matter how hard.

but believe what you like...you (and the others) always do.

TAM

Edx · 27th January 2010, 11:35 AM

Originally Posted by vinniem

Ron does not think truthers are looney tunes. During the debate he congratulated Gage on his work and his desire to inform people about it. Ron does not seem like the typical knee-jerk debunker that resides here. I notice he isn't a member here. I ouldn't encourage him to join because you might have another Frank Greening style embarassment.

Ron was being nice and polite.

Note that he congratulated Gage not on being factually correct but about telling people what he believes.

I suspect you believe he said something else in the same way as you think him wanting to have WTC7 looked at again is the same as Gage asking for a new investigation.

dtugg · 27th January 2010, 11:37 AM

Even Ron Wieck was polite to the psychos he had on his show.

Edx · 27th January 2010, 12:20 PM

Originally Posted by Seymour Butz

Isn't this what NIST believes happened anyways?.

Go listen to the way Ron explains it, instead of my poor recollection

DGM · 27th January 2010, 01:01 PM

Originally Posted by vinniem

Ron does not think truthers are looney tunes. During the debate he congratulated Gage on his work and his desire to inform people about it. Ron does not seem like the typical knee-jerk debunker that resides here. I notice he isn't a member here. I ouldn't encourage him to join because you might have another Frank Greening style embarassment.

Just so you know. Ron Craig and LashL are friends in real life.

riptowtan · 27th January 2010, 01:07 PM

Wow. I can't believe how dumb Richard Gage is. I love it how he uses the squib claim in combination with the explosive testimonies and say that thats what the eyewitnesses were talking about. If this was the case why don't we HEAR the squibs in any of the videos. Is he aware a high percentage of the "explosions" were heard INSIDE the building BEFORE the collapse. Gage's explanation for how the thermite/thermate would keep burning for 21 days was widely incoherent. Something about an "extra chemical reaction". I could go on, but I feel like I just lost an hour of my life listening to that debate.

Edx · 27th January 2010, 01:13 PM

Originally Posted by DGM

Just so you know. Ron Craig and LashL are friends in real life.

Speaking of real life, I hear there are no respawn points in RL.

Reactor drone · 27th January 2010, 01:16 PM

I seemed a very one sided debate to me.Ron Craig delivered a lot of good information and Gage delivered his old speech and tried to sell a few DVDs (which seems to be the only goal Richard Gage has).

I could almost hear Gage jumping out of his seat when he heard the words "path of least resistance" and his presentation is so devoid of thought and reason that you could pretty much plug any truther into his position and hear exactly the same debate.

LashL · 27th January 2010, 01:26 PM

Originally Posted by vinniem

Ron does not think truthers are looney tunes. During the debate he congratulated Gage on his work and his desire to inform people about it. Ron does not seem like the typical knee-jerk debunker that resides here. I notice he isn't a member here. I ouldn't encourage him to join because you might have another Frank Greening style embarassment.

As usual, you are wrong.

Ron most certainly thinks that truthers are looney tunes, and he has been a member here for quite some time. He just doesn't post very much. He is a genuinely nice guy and a real gentleman, thus his pleasantness to Gage despite the fact that he knows Gage to be a nutcase who is only out to hawk dvds by spreading nonsense and lies about the events of September 11, 2001.

26th January 2010, 05:28 AM	#1
BigAl Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 5,398	Did the Jan 23 Gage-Craig debate happen ? The AE911 website says that last Saturday the there was to be a debate. Did it happen and is there audio or video available? Quote: Jan 23, 2010 Live Debate: Architect Richard Gage, AIA, vs. Explosives Expert Ron Craig, Round Two http://www.ae911truth.org/info/151
BigAl Philosopher Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 5,398	__________________ ------ Eric Pode of Croydon Chief Assistant to the Assistance Chief, Dept of Redundancy Dept.

26th January 2010, 05:39 AM	#2
vinniem Banned Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 308	Originally Posted by BigAl The AE911 website says that last Saturday the there was to be a debate. Did it happen and is there audio or video available? It most certainly did happen. The audio is in the AE911truth watch thread.
vinniem Banned Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 308

26th January 2010, 04:29 PM	#6
Edx Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 4,242	Its not such a great job for Gage screw ups IMO, but its great if you combine it with the previous Gage interview in terms of contradictions. I'll have to make another video showing some more stupid comments by Gage doing this. Unfortunately, while Ron provides excellent rebuttals to explosives and firefighter arguments, IE his area of expertise, he doesn't do well in rebutting Gage's other claims. For example Gage used the Chief Palmer quote that Floor 78 had only two isolated pockets of fire and Ron doesn't rebut it, clearly he hadn't heard that before. He also hadn't heard of the microspheres, that didn't look good and started to deny they existed. He claimed there was no molten metal AT ALL rather than saying it was most likely Aluminium if it was anything. Gage also claimed that all the steel was shipped off before it was looked at, again Ron doesn't counter it with the fact that it was. He also had no response to the sulfurization-effect of some of the steel members that Gage kept going on about. Ron also doesn't explain the dust cloud. He lets Gage get away with the stupid phrase "pyroclastic cloud", he even uses it himself, and doesn't talk about how most of that dust would be the dry wall not concrete and how even building collapses without explosives still create large dust clouds. Ron in my opinion also didn't know enough about nano-thermite to show that Gage is misrepresenting it, you can glean that impression if you try hard but you have to understand the main point about explosives not being able to do what Gage claims they can do first and remember what Ron said earlier but acting ignorant in respect to nano-thermite to truther's just means they will ignore everything he says about it since they've then decided he doesn't know what it is and so they can still justify believing it has all these mythical properties. One thing I did notice was Gage early on says they never made the claim that the firefighters surrounding the glowing hole in the ground was evidence of thermite! I'll need to listen again, but that was funny.
Edx Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 4,242	__________________ http://www.youtube.com/user/TheSkepticalIdealist Last edited by Edx; 26th January 2010 at 05:07 PM.

26th January 2010, 05:15 PM	#7
vinniem Banned Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 308	The bit that really surprised me was that Craig seems now to be fully behind a new wtc7 investigation. I have heard both debates. I think Gage won the first and Craig won the second. I think Craig was unprepared for the first debate but he seemed very clued up in the second one. Except that he denied the existence of the microspheres.
vinniem Banned Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 308

26th January 2010, 07:22 PM	#9
Edx Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 4,242	Originally Posted by vinniem The bit that really surprised me was that Craig seems now to be fully behind a new wtc7 investigation. And various scientists have a problem with the NIST report but not in the way truther's do, they have specific criticisms about how fire caused the buildings to collapse. I think even Mackey said he doesn't agree with every detail. To think saying Ron wanting to see another investigation relates to Gage wanting a new investigation is absurd. Ron clarifies near the end that he doesn't think it was the failure of column 79 so much as the connections themselves. Whether he is right doesn't matter, what matters is his disagreement with NIST is comparatively extremely minor. No doubt he will still be used to claim that even Ron Craig, explosives expert, wants to see a new investigation anyway. Quote: I think Craig was unprepared for the first debate but he seemed very clued up in the second one.. Not enough, there was plenty basic stuff he could known as I pointed out.
Edx Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 4,242	__________________ http://www.youtube.com/user/TheSkepticalIdealist Last edited by Edx; 26th January 2010 at 07:25 PM.

26th January 2010, 02:34 PM	#3
carlitos "más divertido" Join Date: Jul 2009 Posts: 11,516	try this - http://www.ae911truth.org/media/1001...Craig-2of2.mp3

26th January 2010, 03:41 PM	#4
Walter Ego Master Poster Join Date: Jan 2008 Posts: 2,557	Originally Posted by carlitos try this - http://www.ae911truth.org/media/1001...Craig-2of2.mp3 I found a video version that I put up on my blog today. http://911vids.blogspot.com/2010/01/...rd-syrett.html

26th January 2010, 03:54 PM	#5
T.A.M. Keeper of the Kool-Vax Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Far East...of Canada Posts: 20,816	I am guessing the debate went something like this... Gage: Did you know X happened, proving it was an inside job Craig: actually, thats not what happened, here is what happened. Gage: Did you know that Y happened, proving it was an inside job Craig: actually, thats not what happened, here is what happened. Gage: Did you know that Z happened, proving it was an inside job Craig: Whacks head repeatedly off of desk. TAM

26th January 2010, 07:11 PM	#8
LashL Goddess of Legaltainment™ Administrator Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 26,221	Originally Posted by BigAl The AE911 website says that last Saturday the there was to be a debate. Did it happen and is there audio or video available? There was no debate on Jan. 23; that's Gage's two week late spin on the debate that occurred on Jan. 10.

26th January 2010, 08:32 PM	#10
LashL Goddess of Legaltainment™ Administrator Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 26,221	Originally Posted by Edx No doubt he will still be used to claim that even Ron Craig, explosives expert, wants to see a new investigation anyway. Ron thinks that the inaptly self-named "truthers" are completely looneytunes, and does not support their alleged call for a "new investigation" into the collapses of the WTC buildings as Gage claims. It is complete nonsense for Gage to suggest otherwise, as Ron does not in any way agree with Gage's stupidity. The only "new investigation" that he supports is that which the rest of the rational among us support a "new investigation"; that is to say, "If truthers want a new investigation, get on with it already and leave the rest of us out of it."

26th January 2010, 08:35 PM	#11
Edx Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 4,242	Originally Posted by LashL Ron thinks that the inaptly self-named "truthers" are completely looneytunes, and does not support their alleged call for a "new investigation" into the collapses of the WTC buildings as Gage claims. It is complete nonsense for Gage to suggest otherwise, as Ron does not in any way agree with Gage's stupidity. The only "new investigation" that he supports is that which the rest of the rational among us support a "new investigation"; that is to say, "If truthers want a new investigation, get on with it already and leave the rest of us out of it." I wonder if they will put him on Patriots 4 911 Truth like they do with the dead victims?
Edx Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 4,242	__________________ http://www.youtube.com/user/TheSkepticalIdealist

26th January 2010, 08:37 PM	#12
LashL Goddess of Legaltainment™ Administrator Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 26,221	Originally Posted by Edx I wonder if they will put him on Patriots 4 911 Truth like they do with the dead victims? I wouldn't be surprised in the least if they did. The scumbags at Patriots 4 911 Truth are even (slightly) more egregiously disgusting and pathetic than Gage and Co.

26th January 2010, 09:16 PM	#13
R.Mackey Philosopher Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: The armpit of L.A. Posts: 7,857	Originally Posted by Edx And various scientists have a problem with the NIST report but not in the way truther's do, they have specific criticisms about how fire caused the buildings to collapse. I think even Mackey said he doesn't agree with every detail. You can read my criticisms of NIST's WTC 1 and 2 report in my whitepaper. I devote an entire chapter to contrasting the different approaches and results, along with my specific criticisms. Another chapter covers scientific progress after NIST finished its report. And I treat in-depth criticism from Eric Douglas in detail, agreeing with a good portion of it. But these are just details. Think of it like this: Suppose one research team decides the average American male is 175 cm tall. Another team decides the correct answer is 178 cm. And then the Truthers claim that since the teams don't agree, their own guess that the real figure is 6,252 cm is just as valid. The microspheres, melted metal, etc., these details have obvious and simple explanations. The only reason Truthers dwell on them is because, through repetition, they've found things that other people are less likely to have heard of, and makes Truthers sound the least idiotic at first blush. It's just what they do. No need to worry, that is also all that they do.
	__________________ "Nothing real can defeat us. Nothing unreal exists." -B. Banzai VT VENIANT OMNES

26th January 2010, 09:45 PM	#14
Seymour Butz Muse Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 650	Originally Posted by Edx Ron clarifies near the end that he doesn't think it was the failure of column 79 so much as the connections themselves. Isn't this what NIST believes happened anyways? The floor beam expanded and broke the girder to column connection, which then resulted in a floor failure, which then broke other floor/girder connections, which led to the collapse of 79, which led to the horizontal progression, which resulted in the global collapse. It is a twoof lie that 7 collapsed as a result of col 79's failure. This implies that it failed to heat. This is the lie they tell so that they can use their incredulity about the fire's size.
Seymour Butz Muse Join Date: Jun 2008 Posts: 650

27th January 2010, 01:38 AM	#15
vinniem Banned Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 308	Originally Posted by LashL Ron thinks that the inaptly self-named "truthers" are completely looneytunes, and does not support their alleged call for a "new investigation" into the collapses of the WTC buildings as Gage claims. It is complete nonsense for Gage to suggest otherwise, as Ron does not in any way agree with Gage's stupidity. The only "new investigation" that he supports is that which the rest of the rational among us support a "new investigation"; that is to say, "If truthers want a new investigation, get on with it already and leave the rest of us out of it." Ron does not think truthers are looney tunes. During the debate he congratulated Gage on his work and his desire to inform people about it. Ron does not seem like the typical knee-jerk debunker that resides here. I notice he isn't a member here. I ouldn't encourage him to join because you might have another Frank Greening style embarassment.
vinniem Banned Join Date: Jan 2010 Posts: 308

27th January 2010, 01:53 AM	#16
beachnut Penultimate Amazing Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Dog House Posts: 19,904	Originally Posted by R.Mackey You can read my criticisms of NIST's WTC 1 and 2 report in my whitepaper. I devote an entire chapter to contrasting the different approaches and results, along with my specific criticisms. Another chapter covers scientific progress after NIST finished its report. And I treat in-depth criticism from Eric Douglas in detail, agreeing with a good portion of it. But these are just details. Think of it like this: Suppose one research team decides the average American male is 175 cm tall. Another team decides the correct answer is 178 cm. And then the Truthers claim that since the teams don't agree, their own guess that the real figure is 6,252 cm is just as valid. The microspheres, melted metal, etc., these details have obvious and simple explanations. The only reason Truthers dwell on them is because, through repetition, they've found things that other people are less likely to have heard of, and makes Truthers sound the least idiotic at first blush. It's just what they do. No need to worry, that is also all that they do. Highlights of the anti-intellectual movement of 911 truth which spews delusions based on hearsay and lies. A fringe few who can only talk and are hung up on "debunkers". Have to grade posts by truthers by how many times they say, "debunker". Their red badge of stupid ideas summed up by their lack of evidence and delusional conclusions.

27th January 2010, 04:08 AM	#17
T.A.M. Keeper of the Kool-Vax Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: The Far East...of Canada Posts: 20,816	Originally Posted by vinniem Ron does not think truthers are looney tunes. During the debate he congratulated Gage on his work and his desire to inform people about it. Ron does not seem like the typical knee-jerk debunker that resides here. I notice he isn't a member here. I ouldn't encourage him to join because you might have another Frank Greening style embarassment. You obviously have not heard of being polite. The "polite" thing to do, when entering or participating in a debate, is to find something good to say about your opponent, no matter how hard. but believe what you like...you (and the others) always do. TAM

27th January 2010, 11:35 AM	#18
Edx Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 4,242	Originally Posted by vinniem Ron does not think truthers are looney tunes. During the debate he congratulated Gage on his work and his desire to inform people about it. Ron does not seem like the typical knee-jerk debunker that resides here. I notice he isn't a member here. I ouldn't encourage him to join because you might have another Frank Greening style embarassment. Ron was being nice and polite. Note that he congratulated Gage not on being factually correct but about telling people what he believes. I suspect you believe he said something else in the same way as you think him wanting to have WTC7 looked at again is the same as Gage asking for a new investigation.
Edx Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 4,242	__________________ http://www.youtube.com/user/TheSkepticalIdealist Last edited by Edx; 27th January 2010 at 12:07 PM.

27th January 2010, 11:37 AM	#19
dtugg Banned Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: NWO headquarters Posts: 7,898	Even Ron Wieck was polite to the psychos he had on his show.

27th January 2010, 12:20 PM	#20
Edx Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 4,242	Originally Posted by Seymour Butz Isn't this what NIST believes happened anyways?. Go listen to the way Ron explains it, instead of my poor recollection
Edx Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 4,242	__________________ http://www.youtube.com/user/TheSkepticalIdealist

27th January 2010, 01:01 PM	#21
DGM #4 Join Date: May 2007 Location: West of Northshore MA Posts: 14,324	Originally Posted by vinniem Ron does not think truthers are looney tunes. During the debate he congratulated Gage on his work and his desire to inform people about it. Ron does not seem like the typical knee-jerk debunker that resides here. I notice he isn't a member here. I ouldn't encourage him to join because you might have another Frank Greening style embarassment. Just so you know. Ron Craig and LashL are friends in real life.
	__________________ Join the team, Show us what your machine can do (or just contribute to a good cause)Join the JREF Folders ! Team 13232 "Remember that the goal of conspiracy rhetoric is to bog down the discussion, not to make progress toward a solution" Jay Windley

27th January 2010, 01:07 PM	#22
riptowtan Thinker Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 186	Wow. I can't believe how dumb Richard Gage is. I love it how he uses the squib claim in combination with the explosive testimonies and say that thats what the eyewitnesses were talking about. If this was the case why don't we HEAR the squibs in any of the videos. Is he aware a high percentage of the "explosions" were heard INSIDE the building BEFORE the collapse. Gage's explanation for how the thermite/thermate would keep burning for 21 days was widely incoherent. Something about an "extra chemical reaction". I could go on, but I feel like I just lost an hour of my life listening to that debate.
riptowtan Thinker Join Date: Nov 2008 Posts: 186

27th January 2010, 01:13 PM	#23
Edx Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 4,242	Originally Posted by DGM Just so you know. Ron Craig and LashL are friends in real life. Speaking of real life, I hear there are no respawn points in RL.
Edx Illuminator Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 4,242	__________________ http://www.youtube.com/user/TheSkepticalIdealist

27th January 2010, 01:16 PM	#24
Reactor drone Muse Join Date: May 2009 Location: Ministry of housinge Posts: 629	I seemed a very one sided debate to me.Ron Craig delivered a lot of good information and Gage delivered his old speech and tried to sell a few DVDs (which seems to be the only goal Richard Gage has). I could almost hear Gage jumping out of his seat when he heard the words "path of least resistance" and his presentation is so devoid of thought and reason that you could pretty much plug any truther into his position and hear exactly the same debate.
	Last edited by Reactor drone; 27th January 2010 at 01:17 PM. Reason: spelling

27th January 2010, 01:26 PM	#25
LashL Goddess of Legaltainment™ Administrator Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 26,221	Originally Posted by vinniem Ron does not think truthers are looney tunes. During the debate he congratulated Gage on his work and his desire to inform people about it. Ron does not seem like the typical knee-jerk debunker that resides here. I notice he isn't a member here. I ouldn't encourage him to join because you might have another Frank Greening style embarassment. As usual, you are wrong. Ron most certainly thinks that truthers are looney tunes, and he has been a member here for quite some time. He just doesn't post very much. He is a genuinely nice guy and a real gentleman, thus his pleasantness to Gage despite the fact that he knows Gage to be a nutcase who is only out to hawk dvds by spreading nonsense and lies about the events of September 11, 2001.