AE911 Speaking engagements

[Scott Sommers]

David Icke has been interviewed numerous times on the BBC.

Quote:

[David Icke] was invited to address the Oxford Union, the University of Oxford's debating society.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_I...emic_reception
And that's invited to speak there Truther...

http://talkout.forumotion.com/t106-david-icke

Quote:

Icke's speaking engagements can draw a substantial audience in Canada. During an October 1999 speaking tour there, he received a standing ovation from students after a four-hour speech at the University of Toronto

So I guess that means we should seriously entertain the idea of the Reptoids? Maybe I shouldn't be saying this. After all, we are talking to 9/11 Truthers here. They may mistake this for an argument about why we should all be hanging with David Icke.

[ProBonoShill]

I remember faculty at a Quebec University weren't too happy when Gage was given a platform to spread his lies.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montre...ence-uqam.html

Quote:

Administrators at the University of Quebec in Montreal (UQÀM) say they will develop a formal policy for outside groups renting campus space for events after a controversial lecture about 9/11 drew fire by academic staff.

Quote:

Julien Tourreille, who holds the Raoul-Dandurand chair in strategic and diplomatic issues, told Montreal media outlets that Truthers are intellectually dishonest.

"I think it's a shame to see UQÀM's name associated to such a movement," Tourreille told Montreal newspaper La Presse last week. "It doesn't help the credibility of a research institution that tries to demonstrate that it employs serious people."

[ergo]

Originally Posted by ProBonoShill

I remember faculty at a Quebec University weren't too happy when Gage was given a platform to spread his lies.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montre...ence-uqam.html

Typical bedunker quote mine. Here's the other part:

Quote:

But the French-language university defended its right to have contentious speakers lecture on campus as part of free speech, saying it was appropriate to debate ideas, as long as events don't incite riots.

The Monday night lecture, hosted by World for 9/11 Truth, drew about 700 people who came to hear from two U.S. academics who deny the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks were carried out by terrorists.

Also, it seems that the "staff" who were "complaining" numbered one.

[Case]

Originally Posted by ergo

Oh my gawwd... this sounds ominous. Innocent believers in paranormal physics being intimidated in an auditorium of cult-like "truth" bullies.... I'm sure this is true. I feel afraid...


Hey, you didn't happen to start a petition for 9/11 truth, didja?

I doubt skeptics in this forum would be bullied or even swayed to change their minds from a Gage presentation, any more than you'd change your mind from hearing Chris Mohr and others. The point was that laypeople who found themselves in this situation would be less likely to assert their doubt in a situation that lent itself saying so in front while surrouded by true believers. It's a very confrontional thing to do.

It's a telling microcosm of the 9/11 Truth community that is less concerned about asking "How good is Gage's science?" and more concerned with "How effective is Gage (et al) at changing people's minds?". I first noticed this pattern when we asked 9/11 Truthers to present for us a few years back. The only metric they seemed to be obsessed with was how effective they were changing minds and exposing them to WTC7. (by way of a pre- and post event questionnaire)

Let's face it, what Gage does is 9/11 carnie entertainment- the mock anger, cardboard props, movies with explosive sounds removed and scary music added. It's a great trick as long as you don't ask hard questions and play along.

reetition- Nope. Read my post in that thread.

[Case]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Thanks Case,

I'd be curious as to how many of the audience at that particular event voted which way before and after (if you know, or have read it since), and how much his talk actually swayed the votes.

I'm well aware that the show of hands of an audience is not a very scientifically sound method of collecting data, but it at least gives a vague indication of the audiences response to information presented.

If for example Gage had not made any good points during his talk, or been unable to answer direct questions from the audience, or been called out on glaring factual inaccuracies during the talk and made to look a fool then I doubt that the audience would hesitate to show this when asked their opinion at the end.

This was before I started taping 9/11 Truth appearances, so I don't have hard numbers. If I had to guess (remember this was two years ago) I think 20-30 people (out of a few hundred) where on the fence/believed in NIST report before he started.

By the time Gage was finished, only two people raised their hands supporting the NIST report- me and the person I was with. (During the drive home, she did found herself questioning the NIST report and thought Gage raised very interesting points)

Many of Gage's appearances do include his 'handcount' routine, so I'm sure if you gather enough of his videos, you'd have a pretty fair idea of his rhetorical effectiveness.

[Case]

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay

Wow. Informative post! Welcome to the forum!

Thanks very much Orphia Nay! I've been lurking here off and on for years now, I feel like I need to start contributing.

[ergo]

Originally Posted by Case

It's a telling microcosm of the 9/11 Truth community that is less concerned about asking "How good is Gage's science?" and more concerned with "How effective is Gage (et al) at changing people's minds?". I first noticed this pattern when we asked 9/11 Truthers to present for us a few years back. The only metric they seemed to be obsessed with was how effective they were changing minds and exposing them to WTC7. (by way of a pre- and post event questionnaire)

Well, given that Gage is effectively the public relations face of 9/11 Truth, yes, his ability on this front is a concern, given also that the message is for the most part correct. Gregory Urich may have some semantic nitpicks with him, but let's remember that Urich agrees the official story cannot be true. This is the main message that needs to get out, and Gage is doing this very, very effectively. If you don't like it, get some engineers and architects to his events to question him on it. Chances are they're going to end up largely agreeing with him. That's because it's true, not because Gage is making things up.

Bedunkers need to get off their tushes and get some real science out there if they have so many objections. Mackey can't even publish his "white" paper. The others publish in magazines like "Skeptic". Not real journals. The official story, the NIST reports have been shown to be false. This is not debatable any more. All we seek now is official acknowledgment and/or critical mass. This isn't something that you're going to "smack down" with science. Science is not on your side here.

It's ridiculous that this has to be pointed out to you.

[ProBonoShill]

Originally Posted by ergo

Typical bedunker quote mine. Here's the other part:

And that has what to do with faculty being unhappy about Gage's presence?

Quote:

Also, it seems that the "staff" who were "complaining" numbered one.

Does it?


Let's see:

Quote:

Administrators at the University of Quebec in Montreal (UQÀM) say they will develop a formal policy for outside groups renting campus space for events after a controversial lecture about 9/11 drew fire by academic staff

I'm pretty sure those bolded words indicate more than one person, what do you think ergo?

How about this one:

Quote:

Some professors at the school argue conspiracy theories have no place at UQÀM.

Criticism of the event wasn't limited to UQUM faculty either, personnel at other Quebec Universities were also critical of Gage's conference:

Quote:

U.S. experts at other Quebec institutions, including Steven Saideman at McGill University and Louis Balthazar at Laval University, also spoke out in public against the conference.

Is this another one of those situations where you don't understand word usage. Like when you couldn't figure out the difference between "into" and "onto"? Maybe you should google "plural" and "singular", then have an adult explain them to you.

[Orphia Nay]

Originally Posted by Horatius

See, this is the essential problem with the numbers as presented: you have no reason to suppose that the audience is "full of university students", or that they are of a high "caliber".

The point was made above that people who are not university students can attend public lectures that are held in university facilities. There's no reason to suppose that the audience was full of university students. Indeed, there's reason to suppose they aren't students: When they're there, Gage goes out of his way to highlight the number of engineers he has in the audience; if he had a mostly university crowd, why wouldn't he point that out too?

What's clear from his before and after numbers is, the vast majority of his audience are truthers before they ever hear him speak. How many of the non-truthers do you figure were dragged there by their truther friends? How many do you suppose were already leaning in the truther direction?

This. Read it for comprehension, Zeuzzz.

Gage gives lectures. Where do they have lecture halls? Universities.

Name one truther building.

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

...
Considering that these speeches were made at various top universities and engineering venues,

There is no guarantee that such talks attract relevant and competent folks. Mostly it attracts those already leaning towards twoofiness. Then you have a big element of peer pressure.

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

why are we seeing such figures?

Garbage in, garbage out.
Of course people will come to invalid conclusions when fed false premises. Whaddaya expect?

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

...
Sorry to say but the more that I listen to Mr Gage the harder I find it to disagree with what he says.

Say what?!? Nearly ALL of his talking points are factually false, and it is dead easy to demonstrate that! Can you reply to Urich and defend Gage against that criticism? Please do so!

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Ok lets get back to this point then. Out of the universities that AE911 have given speeches at, can you now list which ones have shown more support for the idea of fires bringing down the buildings after they have heard the evidence presented than supported that idea previously?...

What a STUPID leading question!
This, after you have been told several times that these talks were just held at universities, but not necessarily attended by relevant academics! Universities do not support Gage at all!
The "evidence" presented is not evidence - it's crap. It's a lying bunch of misinfornation and distortion and outright lies.

[ergo]

Originally Posted by ProBonoShill

And that has what to do with faculty being unhappy about Gage's presence?

You mean the single staff person who complained.

Quote:

I'm pretty sure those bolded words indicate more than one person, what do you think ergo?

What do these words mean to you:

Quote:

Administrators at the University of Quebec in Montreal (UQÀM) say they will develop a formal policy for outside groups renting campus space for events after a controversial lecture about 9/11 drew fire by academic staff.

??

Here's the simple sentence structure: "Administrators... will develop a formal policy for...groups renting campus space for events. "

That means that administrators will develop a formal policy for groups renting campus space for events.

How controversial.

Here's how the first two paragraphs of the article run, without the quote mines:

Quote:

Administrators at the University of Quebec in Montreal (UQÀM) say they will develop a formal policy for outside groups renting campus space for events after a controversial lecture about 9/11 drew fire by academic staff.

But the French-language university defended its right to have contentious speakers lecture on campus as part of free speech, saying it was appropriate to debate ideas, as long as events don't incite riots.

Quote:

Some professors at the school argue conspiracy theories have no place at UQÀM.

Who are these professors?

Quote:

Julien Tourreille

Meanwhile,

Quote:

The Monday night lecture, hosted by World for 9/11 Truth, drew about 700 people who came to hear from two U.S. academics who deny the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks were carried out by terrorists.

Hope that helps.

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

The opinion of a hall of toddlers at nursery school counts far less than the opinion of a hall full of university students. So the location does matter.

Argument from False authority Logical Fallacy.
You habe precisely ZERO information about the qualifications of the attendees that responded to Gage's call for show of hands.

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

The fact of them being able to convince the caliber of people they have convinced

Can you descibe that caliber please? Make sure you tell us how you know.

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

is in fact the main point being raised in this thread. If their points were indeed "dirt stupid" and "proven" to be fraudulent, as you proclaim, then they should not be convincing so many people that are members of universities and higher education in such numbers, and seemingly without any exception, as the above data shows.

Gage presents a lot of lies and distortions as "facts" that the audience cannot check ad hoc. If they believe the lies, they will come to invalid conclusions even if they are somewhat more intelligent than toddlers. Can you agree with that last statement?

[ergo]

Originally Posted by Oystein

Nearly ALL of his talking points are factually false, and it is dead easy to demonstrate that! Can you reply to Urich and defend Gage against that criticism? Please do so!

This is simply incorrect. Nor would you be able to demonstrate it even if you had cue cards written in crayon for you.

Urich doesn't believe the official story either. As for his points, I asked two easy questions just off the fly. You can start with those.

[Scott Sommers]

Originally Posted by Oystein

What a STUPID leading question!
This, after you have been told several times that these talks were just held at universities, but not necessarily attended by relevant academics! Universities do not support Gage at all!
The "evidence" presented is not evidence - it's crap. It's a lying bunch of misinfornation and distortion and outright lies.

What? You're talking about 9/11 Truthers like they're a bunch of bone-dead morons. All you've got to do to see how important 9/11 Truth has become is to look at the world around you. 9/11 Truth is simply the most important issue of our time. It is the question that dominates the Republican primary debates. It is the issue that has transformed the construction industry, firefighting, the manufacture of thermite and/or the companies that dustify steel. It is the question that haunts our academic conferences and university departments capturing the brightest minds of today. Ten years after the 9/11 attacks, the demand for 9/11 Truth is calling from everywhere.

9/11 Truthers as retards? Get a grip. They are the heroes of our age.

[ozeco41]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Ok lets get back to this point then. Out of the universities that AE911 have given speeches at, can you now list which ones have shown more support for the idea of fires bringing down the buildings after they have heard the evidence presented than supported that idea previously? Also any universities that after the speech show that there are more people that don't believe that controlled demolition occurred than before.

Judging by their site, there are none.

Are they pulling these numbers out of mid-air? The numbers seem quite precise ...

Anyone have any sort of video evidence where they ask for these hand counts? I'll have a rummage.

You are falling for the truther diversion of discussing second or third degree remote irrelevancies.

What does it matter how many people waved their hands differently after Gag spoke?

The question that matters is "Did the damage from impacts and accumulating damage from unfought fires cause the collapses without any assistance from demolition?"

The answer to that question to any reasoning honest person who looks at the evidence is "Yes!"

Stated in another form it is "Was there any demolition?" and the answer is "No!"

So ask yourself "What am I trying to prove?" If you are interested in the mass psychology effectiveness of a provenly competent con-man then by all means look to the hand waving. BUT if you are really looking at "what caused the collapses" then look to the evidence yourself and don't look to other proxy measures such as hand waving at Gage meetings.

[jhunter1163]

Originally Posted by ergo

Well, given that Gage is effectively the public relations face of 9/11 Truth, yes, his ability on this front is a concern, given also that the message is for the most part correct. Gregory Urich may have some semantic nitpicks with him, but let's remember that Urich agrees the official story cannot be true. This is the main message that needs to get out, and Gage is doing this very, very effectively. If you don't like it, get some engineers and architects to his events to question him on it. Chances are they're going to end up largely agreeing with him. That's because it's true, not because Gage is making things up.

Bedunkers need to get off their tushes and get some real science out there if they have so many objections. Mackey can't even publish his "white" paper. The others publish in magazines like "Skeptic". Not real journals. The official story, the NIST reports have been shown to be false. This is not debatable any more. All we seek now is official acknowledgment and/or critical mass. This isn't something that you're going to "smack down" with science. Science is not on your side here.

It's ridiculous that this has to be pointed out to you.

Gregory Urich has repudiated 9/11 Truth, hasn't he? He WANTED to believe in explosive demolition but eventually concluded that it was impossible. I give him credit for that; he followed the evidence, even though it conflicted with his preconceived views.

I give no credit to Gage. He is a charlatan and a huckster who is making a living off 9/11 victims. "Despicable" is too good a word for him.

[Scott Sommers]

Originally Posted by jhunter1163

Gregory Urich has repudiated 9/11 Truth, hasn't he? He WANTED to believe in explosive demolition but eventually concluded that it was impossible. I give him credit for that; he followed the evidence, even though it conflicted with his preconceived views.

I give no credit to Gage. He is a charlatan and a huckster who is making a living off 9/11 victims. "Despicable" is too good a word for him.

How can you say this? All they need is "critical mass." After the series of 9/11 demonstrations that rocked the world this year, how can anyone doubt the force of 9/11 Truth? Certainly in Canada, it's the movement that's changing the face of politics.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

9/11 Truth...9/11 Truth...making a difference in all the right places...
.....9/11 Truth ...9/11 Truth...heroes for all eternity...
9/11 was an inside job...9/11 was an inside job....
molten steel....dustified steel...hole too small....vicsims....

[Myriad]

The supposed effectiveness of Gage's speaking engagements already addressed in another thread:

Originally Posted by Myriad

The most amazing thing about Gage's supposed ability to convince other professionals is that every single time he convinces one of the engineering professionals in his audience, that engineering professional apparently loses the ability to use his or her engineering expertise to produce a technical paper critical of the impact and fire damage theories of building collapses on 9/11. And, apparently, also loses all ability to convince any other engineering professionals in any way whatsoever. It's like he puts a curse on them, or a gag order or something.

Let's suppose an engineer convinced of Gage's 9/11 claims could convince, on average, one other engineer within a four-month period. Starting with a mere 10 convinced engineers in early 2006, we should be hearing from about 650,000 convinced engineers today. We do not. In fact, the numbers we do see are proof that an average "convinced" engineer is unable, or unwilling, to convince one other engineer in four months, or in six months, or eight months. And the more engineers personally convinced by Gage since then, the less effective those convinced engineers are proven to be at convincing anyone else.

We have the polar opposite of "virality" here. When only "patient zero" has the capability to propagate the meme, the spread is doomed to a slow arithmetic creep at the very best. If religions spread that way, there would be twelve Christians in the world today, at most.

AE911T now supports each successive We Are Change fund raiser to pay for attempted conventional mass media marketing campaigns. This, too, highlights the utter failure of any "viral" spread of 9/11 Truth among professionals.

This is actually fortunate for Gage. If he truly were able to convince other professionals, then he'd have long since convinced some who were more qualified, experienced, and charismatic than himself, and they'd have taken his gig away from him.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Horatius]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Erm, apart from the fact that the talks were held on university campuses and inside university buildings maybe ?




Hmm, not sure. I suppose the assumption he is running with is if you give a speech at a university then you expect most listeners to be of a higher intellect than the average person, with a good percentage of students. Guess he is just keen to point out engineers in particular as they are the most qualified people in the audience for this subject, more so so than the average student.

Yes, that's the assumption he wants you to make, but again: Universities, particularly when hosting talks by outside groups, are open to all. He chooses these venues so as to borrow their credibility, while doing nothing at all to show that his audiences are in any way representative of the university community.

Quote:

And when you say "the vast majority of his audience are truthers before they ever hear him speak" aren't those percentages roughly in order with most polls conducted to assess the amount of people that don't believe the official account of 9/11 vs people that do?

Actually, no, they're not. Here's two that seem to have the greatest number of non-truthers prior to the talk:

Show of hands results	Before	After
Believe fires brought down buildings:	34	2
Unsure:	55	17
Believe in explosive controlled demolition:	148	218
Number of people who attended presentation: 237

Show of hands results	Before	After
Believe fires brought down buildings:	55	0
Unsure:	40	7
Believe in explosive controlled demolition:	155	243
Number of people who attended presentation: 250

34/237 = .143

55/250 = .22

So, 14% and 22% think fires did it, which is way below the numbers reported in any reliable survey. And that's the closest he gets to a representative crowd of any size (there's a few with higher percentages, but there's usually in the 20-30 people size range).

Most crowds are more typically like this:

Show of hands results	Before	After
Believe fires brought down buildings:	2	2
Unsure:	44	4
Believe in explosive controlled demolition:	64	104
Number of people who attended presentation: 110

Show of hands results	Before	After
Believe fires brought down buildings:	2	1
Unsure:	38	6
Believe in explosive controlled demolition:	84	117
Number of people who attended presentation:	124

Show of hands results	Before	After
Believe fires brought down buildings:	0	0
Unsure:	8	0
Believe in explosive controlled demolition:	53	61
Number of people who attended presentation: 61

Usually less that 5% non-truthers. If Truthers really did make up 95% of the general population, we wouldn't be talking about it here, they'd be running the country.

As described above, Gage almost always speaks to a crowd that mostly consists of people who already believe his schtick, with a sub-group of people who are leaning that way ("Unsure").

[chrismohr]

Hi Zeuzzz and all,

My March 6 debate with Richard Gage took place at the University of Colorado in Boulder. 9/11 Truth people rented the hall so their presence on the university was much more an indication of the institution's commitment to free speech and rental income than any validation of Gage's assertions. Over 250 people showed up, and almost all were committed 9/11 Truth people. Very few had any technical training (I hung around for hours afterwards talking to people, and almost everyone I talked to was a liberal arts student or graduate).

The figures Gage reported from their survey that evening were completely different from the usual numbers: twice as many people shifted their opinions towards natural collapse as towards Controlled Demolition. The sample was small because most people's opinions were unchanged: http://ae911truth.org/en/news-sectio...-face-off.html

Large numbers of people believe Gage at his meetings when no one is there to challenge his assertions, but very very few of them go on to become 9/11 activists. I don't have an answer to this question: why do we see large numbers of people charged up and becoming politically active after a Tea Party, Occupy Wall Street or antiwar rally but 9/11 Truth groups never seem to inspire action (large demonstrations, letter writing campaigns etc) by similar numbers of people?

[Scott Sommers]

Originally Posted by Horatius

Yes, that's the assumption he wants you to make, but again: Universities, particularly when hosting talks by outside groups, are open to all. He chooses these venues so as to borrow their credibility, while doing nothing at all to show that his audiences are in any way representative of the university community.

Actually, no, they're not. Here's two that seem to have the greatest number of non-truthers prior to the talk:

Show of hands results	Before	After
Believe fires brought down buildings:	34	2
Unsure:	55	17
Believe in explosive controlled demolition:	148	218
Number of people who attended presentation: 237

Show of hands results	Before	After
Believe fires brought down buildings:	55	0
Unsure:	40	7
Believe in explosive controlled demolition:	155	243
Number of people who attended presentation: 250

34/237 = .143

55/250 = .22

So, 14% and 22% think fires did it, which is way below the numbers reported in any reliable survey. And that's the closest he gets to a representative crowd of any size (there's a few with higher percentages, but there's usually in the 20-30 people size range).

Most crowds are more typically like this:

Show of hands results	Before	After
Believe fires brought down buildings:	2	2
Unsure:	44	4
Believe in explosive controlled demolition:	64	104
Number of people who attended presentation: 110

Show of hands results	Before	After
Believe fires brought down buildings:	2	1
Unsure:	38	6
Believe in explosive controlled demolition:	84	117
Number of people who attended presentation:	124

Show of hands results	Before	After
Believe fires brought down buildings:	0	0
Unsure:	8	0
Believe in explosive controlled demolition:	53	61
Number of people who attended presentation: 61

Usually less that 5% non-truthers. If Truthers really did make up 95% of the general population, we wouldn't be talking about it here, they'd be running the country.

As described above, Gage almost always speaks to a crowd that mostly consists of people who already believe his schtick, with a sub-group of people who are leaning that way ("Unsure").

You are right. Angus Reid in 2010, found that 15% of a sample of 1007 Americans were willing to endorse an item about controlled demolition on 9/11 and another 11% was unsure. In Gage's group, the comparable group was 81% (of 237). A test of proportions shows that this would happen by chance much less than 99% of the time. So even from his own numbers we know that Gage's groups are disproportionately 9/11 Truther heroes.

But I'm sure that surprises none of the thinking people here. Honestly, who else would go to one of these things? Noam Chomsky? Amy Goodman? Tomasz Wierzbicki?

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Sorry to say but the more that I listen to Mr Gage the harder I find it to disagree with what he says.

I'm sorry for you too.

[ProBonoShill]

Originally Posted by ergo

You mean the single staff person who complained.

No, the article clearly states "administrators" and "staff", do you think the person writing the article is making things up?

Quote:

What do these words mean to you:



??

Here's the simple sentence structure: "Administrators... will develop a formal policy for...groups renting campus space for events. "

That means that administrators will develop a formal policy for groups renting campus space for events.

How controversial.

Why do you think the Administrators had to develop a formal policy?

Maybe it had something to do with this:

Quote:

controversial lecture about 9/11 drew fire by academic staff.

You know staff as in more than one.


Who are these professors?

Well one is Julien Tourreille and the others weren't quoted. Do you think every staff member having a problem with Dick's snake-oil needed to be quoted?

Quote:

Hope that helps

Yes, it shows you'll ignore common word definitions to hold on to your delusional beliefs.

[catsmate1]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

If for example Gage had not made any good points during his talk, or been unable to answer direct questions from the audience, or been called out on glaring factual inaccuracies during the talk and made to look a fool then I doubt that the audience would hesitate to show this when asked their opinion at the end.

You obviously have no experience with such speakers; they routinely ignore contradicting points, avoid difficult questions and 'Gish Gallop' their way to a superficially plausible story.

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

The opinion of a hall of toddlers at nursery school counts far less than the opinion of a hall full of university students. So the location does matter.

No. You have provided no evidence that the audience was entirely, or even significantly, composed of university students. Furthermore even if it were this would have no effect on the utter lack of evidence for any of Gage's nonsense.

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

The fact of them being able to convince the caliber of people they have convinced is in fact the main point being raised in this thread.

First you should establish that Gage has done so.

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

If their points were indeed "dirt stupid" and "proven" to be fraudulent, as you proclaim, then they should not be convincing so many people that are members of universities and higher education in such numbers, and seemingly without any exception, as the above data shows.

As I said above it is quite easy for someone like Gage to create asuperficially plausible story. This have no effect on the story being wrong.

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

If these speeches were being given at public events for any layman to attend I would not care less, for the very reason you just stated; average public people are gullible. But following from your above point, if they were to ask the audience at each of these universities if they agree that god exists they would not get a positive response. These are educated people at university.

Sigh. Yet again you haven't established that Gage is convincing "educated people". Have you any evidence that Gage's sermons aren't open to the public? Most universities allow their facilities to be used for public lectures and are undiscriminating in who is allowed to do so.

[Justin39640]

Originally Posted by catsmate1

You obviously have no experience with such speakers; they routinely ignore contradicting points, avoid difficult questions and 'Gish Gallop' their way to a superficially plausible story.

No. You have provided no evidence that the audience was entirely, or even significantly, composed of university students. Furthermore even if it were this would have no effect on the utter lack of evidence for any of Gage's nonsense.


First you should establish that Gage has done so.


As I said above it is quite easy for someone like Gage to create asuperficially plausible story. This have no effect on the story being wrong.


Sigh. Yet again you haven't established that Gage is convincing "educated people". Have you any evidence that Gage's sermons aren't open to the public? Most universities allow their facilities to be used for public lectures and are undiscriminating in who is allowed to do so.

Kevin Smith routinely gives lectures and Q&As at universities. You do not have to be a student to attend and he never graduated college. Point being, if you got the green you got a seat.


Here's Kevin speaking at Cornell University.
NSFW

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[000063]

Originally Posted by ergo

Typical bedunker quote mine. Here's the other part:

Your hypocrisy on quote-mining aside, it backs up his statement exactly, so I don't know what you're complaining about.

Originally Posted by ergo

Well, given that Gage is effectively the public relations face of 9/11 Truth, yes, his ability on this front is a concern, given also that the message is for the most part correct.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

The original clip is not available on AE911's YouTube account, for some reason.

Quote:

Bedunkers need to get off their tushes and get some real science out there if they have so many objections. Mackey can't even publish his "white" paper. The others publish in magazines like "Skeptic". Not real journals. The official story, the NIST reports have been shown to be false. This is not debatable any more.

Said Ergo, hoping no one would debate him on it, hoping no one knew that the NIST report has both been endorsed by the ASCE and is taught in several architectural and engineering courses.

Quote:

All we seek now is official acknowledgment and/or critical mass. This isn't something that you're going to "smack down" with science. Science is not on your side here.

False. The scientific consensus supports the official story. You have never explained how, for instance, the sound of the alleged WTC explosives would be blocked by the surrounding structure and office materials. You have implied that was the case, and claimed it was a possibility, but whenever someone asked you for your evidence that the materials would've blocked out a noise audible for well over a mile, you demurred, ignored the question, dodged the question, or asked them to do the legwork to produce evidence to support your claim. You have claimed that any explosives at 9/11 would have caused less non-lethal barotrauma and damage to the surrounding buildings than the Oklahoma City bombing, despite the fact that the explosives would've been more powerful. Science is not on your side, any more than a rattlesnake is on the side of a mouse.

[grandmastershek]

Originally Posted by ergo

Science is not on your side here.

I think the National Science Foundation, the ASCE, the NFPA, & International Code Council to name a few would greatly disagree.

[ergo]

I know I shouldn't but,...

Originally Posted by ProBonoShill

No, the article clearly states "administrators" and "staff", do you think the person writing the article is making things up?

Lol. Shill, the administrators are the ones who responded to Toureille's complaint. There is nothing in the article that states they were against the event. Indeed, they were the ones who defended the importance of free speech and the exchange of ideas.

You're really trying to make this into something it wasn't.

Quote:

You know staff as in more than one.

No, staff also refers to a single person, as in "Let him in, he's staff."

Quote:

Who are these professors?

Well one is Julien Tourreille and the others weren't quoted. Do you think every staff member having a problem with Dick's snake-oil needed to be quoted?

Not only weren't "they" quoted, they weren't even named. Nor were any departments. Only Toureille is named and a couple of "U.S. experts" from other institutions.

If there were other UQAM staff or faculty complaining, you can bet that would be mentioned in the article. Instead, they had to seek opinion from some outside commentators, likely referred by Toureille.

Give it up, dude.

[grandmastershek]

Originally Posted by ergo

No, staff also refers to a single person, as in "Let him in, he's staff."

And you're telling other people to give it up?

Originally Posted by ergo

No, staff also refers to a single person, as in "Let him in, he's staff."

Never seen such pathetic straw grasping.

Not to mention, and not too much of shock, you didn't bother to actually read it and continue to peddle this BS claim even though its been pointed out inthe article and here as well that it was more than 1.

Quote:

Some professors at the school argue conspiracy theories have no place at UQÀM.

You do know what "some" and the use of the "s" at the end of "professor"means right? Pathetic denial.

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by Zeuzzz

Erm, apart from the fact that the talks were held on university campuses and inside university buildings maybe ?

I went to a speaking engagement (Not 911CT related) at one of the universities in Orlando not too long ago. Even though, I was not a student of that university.

In fact, IIRC, all of his speaking engagements are open to the public.

[uke2se]

Originally Posted by grandmastershek

And you're telling other people to give it up?

Never seen such pathetic straw grasping.

Not to mention, and not too much of shock, you didn't bother to actually read it and continue to peddle this BS claim even though its been pointed out inthe article and here as well that it was more than 1.



You do know what "some" and the use of the "s" at the end of "professor"means right? Pathetic denial.

It's "in/on" all over again.

[ProBonoShill]

Originally Posted by ergo

Lol. Shill, the administrators are the ones who responded to Toureille's complaint. There is nothing in the article that states they were against the event. Indeed, they were the ones who defended the importance of free speech and the exchange of ideas.

The article speaks for itself ergo, that you can't read for comprehension isn't my problem.

Remember this:

Quote:

Why do you think the Administrators had to develop a formal policy?

The administartors obviously encountered a problem otherwise they wouldn't feel a need to "develop a formal policy" now would they ergo?


Once again, you've been caught indulging in your favorite truther pastime, that of dodging questions.

Quote:

No, staff also refers to a single person, as in "Let him in, he's staff."

You think the context of that quote indicates one person? LOL

Tell me why later on in the article did it state:

Quote:

"Some professors at the school argue conspiracy theories have no place at UQÀM"

Do you think that means one person too?

Quote:

Not only weren't "they" quoted, they weren't even named. Nor were any departments. Only Toureille is named and a couple of "U.S. experts" from other institutions.

If there were other UQAM staff or faculty complaining, you can bet that would be mentioned in the article. Instead, they had to seek opinion from some outside commentators, likely referred by Toureille.

Give it up, dude.

I guess that's why before Tourielle was even mentioned in the article it stated "SOME PROFFESORS" as in more than one.

Yes I know ergo, the writer was just making things up to make truthers look bad. Poor old truthers everyone is out to get them

I guess we should add the author of this article to the enormous list of those covering up the inside jobby job.

[ProBonoShill]

Originally Posted by ergo

No, staff also refers to a single person, as in "Let him in, he's staff."

Oh and nominated, are you going for the record ergo?

[NoahFence]

Originally Posted by ergo

This is simply incorrect. Nor would you be able to demonstrate it even if you had cue cards written in crayon for you.

Urich doesn't believe the official story either. As for his points, I asked two easy questions just off the fly. You can start with those.

Hilarious. I would destroy Gage in any EVEN debate, all I have is a printing cert from high school. He wouldn't stand a chance. He is THAT stupid.

[carlitos]

Originally Posted by ozeco41

If you are serious

Come on.

[ergo]

Originally Posted by ProBonoShill

The administartors obviously encountered a problem otherwise they wouldn't feel a need to "develop a formal policy" now would they ergo?

They encountered a complaint from one malcontent. It's the Jonathan Kay/Ryan Mackey/squeaky wheel/yappy chihuahua syndrome. Pretending that there are more of them than there are.

Quote:

I guess that's why before Tourielle was even mentioned in the article it stated "SOME PROFFESORS" as in more than one.

If there were more than one, they could probably get a quote from more than one. They wouldn't have to go outside the university to get other opinions.

[Scott Sommers]

I'm wondering why Gage doesn't do some speaking events in Iran or Pakistan? I bet he'd be very well received there. I wouldn't be surprised if his group could get substantial funding from organizations in these places, perhaps even the governments. I don't think there are 9/11 Truth or We Are Change chapters in these places, either. Some of our JREF Truther heroes should think about opening groups there. It would be a really good opportunity for you guys and girls.

[Scott Sommers]

I can easily imagine the turnout for a 9/11 Truth rally in Tehran would be great. I can imagine how discouraging it's getting for the heroes of 9/11 Truth in places like Canada. This year in Calgary, it looks as if they could only get 5 people out to their rally on September 11. What a shame. I wouldn't be surprised if the government in a place like Iran would make this standard curriculum in the school system. They just don't have the technical knowledge right now. There's a mission for Richard Gage and his sidekick Dr. David Griffin - set up a school in rural Pakistan where they teach 9/11 Truth. They could get Dr. Steve to consult on thermite. Or even Dr. Judy to come add a unit on the dustification of steel. I'm sure there would be great interest in this.

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE