Do You Really Think They're Lying?

[Miragememories]

Originally Posted by Miragememories

"Tend to, but not in this case?

What would you do if you were convinced, as Gage is, that the Official Story is not the true story?

Why must he be aware that the weight of professional opinion in the relevant fields is against him when he belongs to a large organization which includes such professionals, all of whom are in agreement that the Official Story is untrue?

Throughout history, advances in science have been made by those who kept an open mind and defied popularly accepted beliefs.

And usually dogmatic beliefs such as yours are maintained out of fear of falling off the edge of the world."

Originally Posted by sheeplesnshills

"I would go see my Doc and get medication because I would also know that I am mistaken as the Laws of Physics and Mathematics cannot lie. If they show that there in no merit in the CT then they are right and then I must be wrong."

If your disingenuous statement was true, then I would agree with that response.

A doctor is not someone I would put at the top of my list in a discussion about the "Laws of Physics and Mathematics".

You must believe the 1600+ professionals at AE911Truth are all unqualified to have such a belief if you can so casually and obnoxiously dismiss them.

Such arrogance only serves to undermine your credibility. Go for it.

Originally Posted by Miragememories

"There is no motivation for wanting to believe the Official Story is false other than an open-minded realization that it is discredited by scientific evidence."

Originally Posted by sheeplesnshills

"Yet zero scientific evidence exist so why do they still believe? Do you deny the existence of Paranoid Schizophrenia?"

Why do you continue to lie rather than just state the truth and accept the limits of what has been proven?

Is it really more important to be accepted as a member of a popular clique than to respond as an individual and acknowledge that absolute statements like "zero scientific evidence exists" are bs?

MM

[NoahFence]

Originally Posted by Miragememories

Gage et al are still in debt from financing events like the 9/11 Hearings in Toronto.

I can't believe 9/11 has been a cash cow for anyone involved in 9/11 Truth.

Until you can "effectively" discredit evidence like the findings in the Bentham paper, you fail in your argument that "the "official story" isn't discredited by scientific evidence".

MM

You understand the financial statements are public record, right?

Gage makes a profit off of you people. That's all there is to it.

Quote:

Such arrogance only serves to undermine your credibility

FINALLY!!!

Something you're an expert at, and can discuss as an expert. How to undermine your credibility.

[beachnut]

The 1600+ professionals at AE911Truth are all unqualified to support Gage's lies, they fell for them. They represent a percent of professionals at lower than mental illness; they could be a subset of insane people.

If 1600+ professionals at AE911Truth believe Gage's lies, they are morons on 911 issues. They spent zero time with evidence, they don't have a clue what happen. To prove this truth wrong, someone need to take their work and prove the inside job is not fantasy. Show me the Pulitzer! Failure to figure out 911 is a done deal.
The Pulitzer Claim; any of the many claims by 911 truth would be big winners for a Pulitzer Prize. ... problems with this; study Watergate.

1600+ professionals at AE911Truth can't be liars, they are delusional, gullible paranoid conspiracy theorists, insane, or dumb, too lazy to be informed so they signed up for the idiot on 911 group, A&E.

Rational people can dismiss the 1600 plus, they don't have evidence. 1600 can't support their delusional membership in Gage's one man travel club spreading lies seminar on 911, no evidence to support Gage's claims.


1600 plus liars? Maybe not, they are proved incompetents on 911 issues.

[chrismohr]

Just to be clear, mental illness is way off the charts from anything we're talking about on this thread. People who are attracted to epiphanies? That's how my brain works... in the last decade I collected thousands of pieces of data about the harmonic ratios of hundreds of ancient musical scales, then had an incredible ahah moment when The Grand Unified Theory of Ancient Music theory erupted from my brain all at once. It was a major musical-acoustical discovery, and great scientific achievements are also often like that. Let me tell you it's as good as any orgasm. The results of my ahah moment are fully mathematically valid and extremely esthetically useful. Is the love of "peak experiences" mental illness (I've climbed 1000 peaks in my life too BTW, and I tolerate the mundane hours but live for those moments of awe and delight and ludicrous joy)? Is religion mental illness? Is believing in 9/11 Truth mental illness?

I've dealt with mentally ill people in prisons where I've volunteered for two decades. There's people I don't like and there's people I disagree with. The mentally ill are something else altogether. I'm no psychiatrist but you badly misuse the term when you apply it to 9/11 Truth. Or religion.

I've said this before: Richard Gage is wrong wrong wrong but I know him well. He is neither mentally ill nor a fraud. He is not motivated by money any more than a schoolteacher is (he is glad he is able to do this work full time). Beware of trying to psychologize the people you disagree with. I'm in complete disagreement with much of what a typical Republican advocates, but I also know that if you say they are uncaring and unfeeling, how do you account for the fact that they donate more generously to charities than Democrats? As just one example...

People are more complex than we know, and it's so easy to marginalize people we disagree with by psychologizing them! You want to talk about mental illness in 9/11 Truth... all countercultural movements attract some mentally ill people. Every once in a awhile you get a child molester (as we see in another thread here at JREF) or someone who's genuinely disturbed who gets attracted to a movement where they can feel they are pitted against the rest of the world etc. That can be something as noble as the civil rights movement of the early 60s or something as baffling as "The Titanic Never Sank". Mentally unstable people get attracted to such causes but that does not mean that the causes are evidence of mental illness.

And no, I don't believe 9/11 Truthers are lying. I do believe they are wrong. Nor do I believe they are uncaring about the horrible loss of life on 9/11. We ALL care very much about them, and the devastation the families have gone through. The only way you can prove me wrong on that statement is if you find someone who tells me otherwise from their own mouths (show me a direct quote, I'll be interested if you can find a single one). Has anyone on either side ever said, "I don't care about the dead and their loved ones, I just care about my 9/11 theory?"

[MarkLindeman]

Originally Posted by Scott Sommers

It's not an argument over the facts of the matter. It's an argument about how the facts and the faith can be reconciled. We try to imagine how it is that Gage can ignore the lack of physical evidence because we see physical evidence as primary. That would be why you rejected your former spiritual beliefs. I suspect that Gage sees it the other way around. He has to reconcile the evidence with his spiritual beliefs because it has primacy. If there are contradictions in there somewhere, that has to be figured out. But rejecting the spiritual portion of the mission is unthinkable.

This interests me, along with your other posts. I'm trying to understand the sense in which the belief is "spiritual" or "faith-based."

Back in 2005 and 2006, I spent a lot of time discussing the 2004 U.S. presidential election with people who seemed to be convinced that the exit polls provided strong evidence that Kerry had beaten Bush. I coined the phrase "exit poll fundamentalism," so I'm sympathetic to your choice of language here. We need some way to describe belief (often with some sense of evangelical mission) supposedly grounded in evidence but largely in spite of it. But I'm not sure how to explain such belief. I suppose there isn't a single cause.

In the case of the leaders that I interacted with, I never did figure out what the root of the belief was, but I don't think they perceived it as spiritual. I think they perceived multiple lines of evidence pointing ineluctably in the same direction, to the extent that it was no longer necessary to rigorously evaluate the lines individually -- as in Brainster's comment about "Griffin's 'cumulative argument'" @ #18. A lot of the work struck me as appallingly bad, but I think if they noticed any of the problems, they rationalized them as oversimplifications for a general audience.

As for the followers, they had apparent authorities telling them a good story, plus whatever various reasons they might have to be predisposed to believe it.

I suspect that we're describing a style of cognition that goes well beyond ordinary senses of "spiritual" or "faith," although I agree that it probably fits well with theology. Hmmm. Thoughts?

[tfk]

Originally Posted by Miragememories

What would you do if you were convinced, as Gage is, that the Official Story is not the true story?

1. Ask myself if I had the required expertise to determine for myself if the key issues, upon which he bases his conclusions, are valid or not.

In Gage's case, the clear answer is "no".

2. Write out the questions that were the basis of my beliefs in careful detail, along with the evidence, and present them to a qualified, experienced group of professionals who DO have the needed qualifications.

In this case, metallurgists for the metallurgical questions, structural engineers (not architects) for the structural engineering questions, videographers for the videography questions, aeronautical engineers (not pilots) for the aeronautical engineering questions, etc.

3. Then I would listen very, very carefully to their answers.

You may recognize those thoughtful actions in the investigations done by Popular Mechanics & the BBC.

And, incidently, by NIST.

You may recognize the abject dearth of those actions in all of the truth movements actions.

Originally Posted by Miragememories

Why must he be aware that the weight of professional opinion in the relevant fields is against him when he belongs to a large organization which includes such professionals, all of whom are in agreement that the Official Story is untrue?

Because 98% of his "experts" have no pertinent expertise. They are amateurs.

And the other 2% have stayed resolutely silent in the only medium that matters to real professionals: peer reviewed professional publications.

Originally Posted by Miragememories

Throughout history, advances in science have been made by those who kept an open mind and defied popularly accepted beliefs.

And usually dogmatic beliefs such as yours are maintained out of fear of falling off the edge of the world.

Go with the house odds.

For every quack who has turned out to be a genius, there have been 10,000 quacks who turned out to be quacks.

Gage has gathered a self-selecting bunch or 1200 amateur quacks and about 40 professional quacks. BFD.

The professionals have proven themselves to be quacks by their near-unanimous statements in their "personal statements" that "as soon as I saw the towers collapse, I knew that … [blah, blah, blah]".

Competent professionals would have set their judgment aside until all the facts were in.

Originally Posted by Miragememories

There is no motivation for wanting to believe the Official Story is false other than an open-minded realization that it is discredited by scientific evidence.

1. 'I've never had the lime light before & I like it" syndrome.
2. "No one is likely to ever hire me again as an architect" syndrome
3. "I hate Bush / Cheney / et al" syndrome.
4. "I hate all authority" syndrome.
5. "I want to feel special & superior" syndrome.
6. "I stopped taking my meds" syndrome.
7. "I don't get enough attention" syndrome
8. "I like getting royalty checks" syndrome
9. "If I stop ranting & start talking reasonably, my radio show dies" syndrome.
10. Angry young boy syndrome

maybe folks could come up with a couple dozen more...

[The Platypus]

Originally Posted by Miragememories

Such arrogance only serves to undermine your credibility. Go for it.

Why do you continue to lie rather than just state the truth and accept the limits of what has been proven?

Is it really more important to be accepted as a member of a popular clique than to respond as an individual and acknowledge that absolute statements like "zero scientific evidence exists" are bs?

MM

As usual MM is a never ending source of massive amounts of irony... Trying to flip reality (arrogantly thinking noone is going to notice) around is a common tactic of liars, so what should i think of 911 kiddies that love too use such a deceptive ploy...

[Miragememories]

Originally Posted by chrismohr

Just to be clear, mental illness is way off the charts from anything we're talking about on this thread. People who are attracted to epiphanies? That's how my brain works... in the last decade I collected thousands of pieces of data about the harmonic ratios of hundreds of ancient musical scales, then had an incredible ahah moment when The Grand Unified Theory of Ancient Music theory erupted from my brain all at once. It was a major musical-acoustical discovery, and great scientific achievements are also often like that. Let me tell you it's as good as any orgasm. The results of my ahah moment are fully mathematically valid and extremely esthetically useful. Is the love of "peak experiences" mental illness (I've climbed 1000 peaks in my life too BTW, and I tolerate the mundane hours but live for those moments of awe and delight and ludicrous joy)? Is religion mental illness? Is believing in 9/11 Truth mental illness?

I've dealt with mentally ill people in prisons where I've volunteered for two decades. There's people I don't like and there's people I disagree with. The mentally ill are something else altogether. I'm no psychiatrist but you badly misuse the term when you apply it to 9/11 Truth. Or religion.

I've said this before: Richard Gage is wrong wrong wrong but I know him well. He is neither mentally ill nor a fraud. He is not motivated by money any more than a schoolteacher is (he is glad he is able to do this work full time). Beware of trying to psychologize the people you disagree with. I'm in complete disagreement with much of what a typical Republican advocates, but I also know that if you say they are uncaring and unfeeling, how do you account for the fact that they donate more generously to charities than Democrats? As just one example...

People are more complex than we know, and it's so easy to marginalize people we disagree with by psychologizing them! You want to talk about mental illness in 9/11 Truth... all countercultural movements attract some mentally ill people. Every once in a awhile you get a child molester (as we see in another thread here at JREF) or someone who's genuinely disturbed who gets attracted to a movement where they can feel they are pitted against the rest of the world etc. That can be something as noble as the civil rights movement of the early 60s or something as baffling as "The Titanic Never Sank". Mentally unstable people get attracted to such causes but that does not mean that the causes are evidence of mental illness.

And no, I don't believe 9/11 Truthers are lying. I do believe they are wrong. Nor do I believe they are uncaring about the horrible loss of life on 9/11. We ALL care very much about them, and the devastation the families have gone through. The only way you can prove me wrong on that statement is if you find someone who tells me otherwise from their own mouths (show me a direct quote, I'll be interested if you can find a single one). Has anyone on either side ever said, "I don't care about the dead and their loved ones, I just care about my 9/11 theory?"

Thank you Chris.

I only wish others here would take a page from your book.

MM

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by chrismohr

...
I've dealt with mentally ill people in prisons where I've volunteered for two decades. There's people I don't like and there's people I disagree with. The mentally ill are something else altogether. I'm no psychiatrist but you badly misuse the term when you apply it to 9/11 Truth. Or religion.

...?"

Have you worked Gage's 1600 plus?
With 1600 nuts signing up for Gage's moronic claims, many would be insane. 320 of 1600 nuts signing up for Gage could have a mental illness, unless paranoid conspiracy theorists who don't think before signing up for lies have a higher rate of mental illness then the general public.

1600 would be scored at zero on 911 issues, by signing up for Gage's group. Imagine a class on 911, these 1600 would fail. It would be interesting to see why 1600 people's education has failed them?

Gage is a moron/failure on 911 issues, a moron/failure on logic related to his 911 claims, a moron/failure on rational thinking on 911 issues. No way to know if mental illness was a factor when the mentally ill members of Gage's moronic cult signed up.

When it comes to making up lies about 911, when thousands die, Gage is like Hitler, except Gage takes money, not lives. How low can you go, how delusional do you have to be to lie about 911, and be so stupid you don't know you are the biggest liar since Hitler?
I am a moron/failure on some issues; I said for sure Bobby Cox rocked in the dugout during Braves Games. I was wrong. Gage is wrong, and he doesn't care! I can prove he doesn't care! I cared and I looked up Bobby Cox, and had to admit, I was a moron on rocking in the dugout.

When will 1600 insane dolts wake up and report Gage is a fraud, even if Gage does not know it. What happen to education, pure education, wanting to know, wanting to be correct? Gage does not care, and there is proof - from actions taken by posters at this forum of skeptics.

The 1600 are morons on 911! If you do a IQ test on 911 alone, all 1600 would be morons. Liars? Maybe not, morons? yes.


I was wrong; Darn, I am a(n) moron/failure imbecile idiot on IQ.
The 1600 are morons imbeciles idiots on 911! If you do a IQ test on 911 alone, all 1600 would be morons imbeciles idiots . Liars? Maybe not, morons imbeciles idiots? yes.

Someone should tell the 1600 the truth, they are idiots. Maybe they will wake up and live up to their potential, and be more than an idiot like me, who asks, "where their Pulitzer Prize is". Where is it? This is simple math, and they all failed.

I find it despicable Gage has not tried to prove himself wrong. I used the Bobby Cox issue as an example, a trivial fact I had wrong, but I cared enough to look it up and prove myself wrong. Guess who was sitting next to Bobby and rocking? Gage does not care he is a snake-oil salesman, and he has fooled you, one way or the other. There are no real victims, save the truth and idiots who donate over 300k/yr to Gage. Who cares, Gage doesn't, and Gage is not really harming anyone more than insurance annuities and other scams. Is debating Gage like appeasement to Hitler? There is nothing to debate, Gage is the personification of lies, even if he has no clue he is a liar. How do you debate delusions? Like debating 2+2=4.

[The Platypus]

Originally Posted by chrismohr

Has anyone on either side ever said, "I don't care about the dead and their loved ones, I just care about my 9/11 theory?"

There are 911 CTs that claim there were no victims on 911.

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by chrismohr

...
I've said this before: Richard Gage is wrong wrong wrong but I know him well. He is neither mentally ill nor a fraud. He is not motivated by money any more than a schoolteacher is (he is glad he is able to do this work full time).
...

I recently talked to someone who had been on the board of AE911T and he said that Gage "Gage refused to stop lying about stuff" and that's why h quit. Also, he claims Gage is making more now than he did as architect and that's why he is not interested in progress or submitting the petition, and he alleges that Gage is not properly making their finances open to the public.
I understand that former followers can be the most gruntled and unfair critics, but there we have someone who is close.

[Scott Sommers]

I live in another continent, so when most of you are posting, I'm asleep. But I woke this morning and wow...the thread has been transformed. From my initial attempt to understand the motivation of 9/11 Truthers, we have moved to a name calling session.

The idea that mental illness explains 9/11 Truth is ridiculous. While I suspect the level of mental illness among Truthers is higher than Chris Mohr seems to believe, his principles on this are sound. In fact, for many years, one of the more active members of this forum was an MD with a great deal of experience dealing with the mentally ill. The way the term is being bandied about here reminds me of the way that Truthers use technical terms they think makes them sound educated or scientific. Mental illness has little to do with the 9/11 Truth movement unless you want to start making up your own definitions for it. And that would be just as bad as the Truthers, right?

Originally Posted by beachnut

Gage is a moron/failure on 911 issues, a moron/failure on logic related to his 911 claims, a moron/failure

In a very technical sense, this is the problem I was trying to get at. No, he is not a moron. The term moron comes from intelligence testing and was once used to indicate a tested IQ between 51 and 70. Gage is clearly not stupid. He appears in full control of his intellect. I would even call him intelligent. Unlike many other 9/11 Truth leaders, he appears to be a respectable professional adult. There has never been even a rumour of drugs, booze and hookers, slothful laziness, or any other kind of dysfunctional behavior on his part. He appears to be a nice guy. I would say the same for DRG.

Gage is by all reckoning an educated and liberal man. I feel the same way about DRG. Gage now hangs with some of the most right-wing and intolerant representatives of American society that can be found. He speaks on the same stage as Gary Franchi and Luke Rudkowski from We Are Change. He speaks along side Craig Fitzgerald who is a member of the John Birch Society and an organzier for right-wing skinhead groups. DRG speaks with members of Japanese and American fascist groups.

And it is here where the problem lies. Why would someone who represents educated middle-class respectability get mixed up in this cult-like belief system with such trash bag characters as Franchi?

More specifically, I keep hearing people say that he's not doing this 9/11 Truth thing the right way for someone who really believes it. Or that if he really believed what he was saying, he would do things differently. So what else do you think he should be doing? I've gone through this in my head and I can not think of anything else he should be doing that he's missed.

Should be launch a lawsuit? He can't. He has no relevant claims about 9/11 and he knows it. Should he petition professional organizations for architects and civil engineers? He can't. He has no meaningful claim, and he knows it.

But if he somehow he still believed this, perhaps because he's unable to understand why having relevant facts should be important for belief, what do you think he should be doing? I think he does all those things right now. He has thought through this very carefully and systematically and he is methodically promoting his cause every way he can imagine possible.

Don't just tell that I'm wrong. Give a list of things that Gage would be doing if he did really believe 9/11 Truth and was not the conman you say he is. What would he be doing differently?

Originally Posted by Oystein

I recently talked to someone who had been on the board of AE911T and he said that Gage "Gage refused to stop lying about stuff" and that's why h quit. Also, he claims Gage is making more now than he did as architect and that's why he is not interested in progress or submitting the petition, and he alleges that Gage is not properly making their finances open to the public.
I understand that former followers can be the most gruntled and unfair critics, but there we have someone who is close.

I'm sorry, but I have to say...so what? Truthers are the absolute worst for calling each other names. As I pointed out in another thread, Tract Blevins says this about Jim Fetzer,

Quote:

James Fetzer is a horrible person. I know him very well...Tracy Blevins Among many other things, he revealed a bunch of research on me that he dug up when I criticized him publicly. It was all wrong. He concluded (almost trumpeted, actually) the fact that I was Tracy O'Leary Tevyaw and that I lived in Albany (with other details). All of it wrong. So you shouldn't trust his investigatory capacity at all. Additionally, he was in the same state as the suspicious murder of a 9/11 researcher, and he never poked his head into the crime. He never lifted a finger to find out how that happened. These two things speak to the level of research this guy does.

So what am I to make of this? what am I to make of your new use of Truthers as a source of factual information about the world? That people in 9/11 Truth are good judges of character and this judgement can be accepted? That you now feel they they are like-minded people whose opinions you share? Or that you will quote anybody as long as they agree with you.

I bet you it's the last one. And believing things just because you agree with their conclusion...isn't that what everyone says shows that Richard Gage is mentally ill or a conman or some other bad thing?

[Oystein]

This is a bit off topic here - an off topic perhaps introduced by one of the members whose posts I cannot see? - but anyway, it fits into what I just said:

AE911T is not a professional organization doing competent professiobal work.
They do hardly any original research. None of their findings are in any way passed the 1600+ "archticets & engineers". None. Zero. Zilch.

The bulk of their "research" is done not by competent engineers or architects with relevant experiences in structural engineering, highrise construction, aeronautics or forensics, but by folks like David Chandler (a physics teacher who utterly sucks at physics), Justin Keogh (studies IT in college), John Cole (whose engineering expertise lays mainly with sanitary infrastructure), Tony Szamboti (mechanical engineer), Chris Sarns (a "licensed contractor", but neither architect nor engineer), Gordon Ross (mechanical and manufacturing Engineering, didn't even sign the "petition"), Ken Jenkins (psychologist) and an anonymous (!) only known as "Arabesque". Not a single competent person doing stuff in his area of expertise among that lot! And then they had folks like Dwain Deets who are simply ... but I must not say this as I believe Dwain is a member here

[R.Mackey]

Originally Posted by Scott Sommers

Don't just tell that I'm wrong. Give a list of things that Gage would be doing if he did really believe 9/11 Truth and was not the conman you say he is. What would he be doing differently?

Well, for starters, he needs (that's needs, not "ought to" -- this is compulsory for someone in his profession) to organize, at the very least, a conference paper detailing his most profound insight about 9/11, and get some legitimate non-advocate feedback. After all, he's already going to AIA conferences. He's just staying in the vendor area rather than actually participating.


Otherwise, I agree with your post. As I've stated repeatedly I think "mental illness" is a factor, but only to the degree that everyone in the world acts irrationally at times, Truther or not. I don't believe diagnosable mental illness is much more prevalent among Truthers than among the general population. Human beings simply aren't logical as a rule. Their behavior is different from mainstream thinking, but not radically so. Mass hysteria and poor judgment can strike us all.

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by Scott Sommers

...
I'm sorry, but I have to say...so what? Truthers are the absolute worst for calling each other names. As I pointed out in another thread, Tract Blevins says this about Jim Fetzer,


So what am I to make of this? what am I to make of your new use of Truthers as a source of factual information about the world? That people in 9/11 Truth are good judges of character and this judgement can be accepted? That you now feel they they are like-minded people whose opinions you share? Or that you will quote anybody as long as they agree with you.

I bet you it's the last one. And believing things just because you agree with their conclusion...isn't that what everyone says shows that Richard Gage is mentally ill or a conman or some other bad thing?

I think you are being a bit unfair here. We are talking about the motivations and mental states of individuals (Gage) who hardly anyone here has met met in person or directly communicated with. Chris is one of them, so his input is valuable. And I happen to have talked to another, Jeffrey Orling, whose input might potentially be equally valuable. I think I attached the appropriate disclaimer, Scott. If I had happened to talk to Richard's best friend and that man had given me a positive report, I'd give you that as well, I just haven't. Okay? Sorry I tried to offer additional data -.-

[ref]

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

Well, for starters, he needs (that's needs, not "ought to" -- this is compulsory for someone in his profession) to organize, at the very least, a conference paper detailing his most profound insight about 9/11, and get some legitimate non-advocate feedback. After all, he's already going to AIA conferences. He's just staying in the vendor area rather than actually participating.

How do we know, that he hasn't already tried that? I mean put together a paper detailing his most profound insight about 9/11, and received feedback? The problem here is, that if the feedback is not what he expects/wants it to be, he would not publish it and we would never now. He is going to AIA conferences and yes he's just staying in the vendor area. Maybe that's all he can do no matter how hard he has tried to make people take him seriously? That's better than doing nothing, and maybe he can get a couple of converts in the process, plus he gets a chance of bringing the truth to more people anyway. And what a more pleasing audience than his former colleagues, who just haven't "had that moment of truth" hit them just yet.

[R.Mackey]

Well, I don't know that for a fact.

However, AE911T posts the most astonishing drivel in lieu of "Scientific Papers" at its website, and nothing there even faintly resembles an actual paper, accepted or not... so I think it's a pretty safe bet that no such paper was ever produced.

I have a real hard time coming up with any other professional, no matter how controversial his or her findings or beliefs, who behaves in such a carnival-barker, multi-level-management fashion as Mr. Gage. Think Pons and Fleischmann, or perhaps the ongoing flap over arsenic-based life (it's nonsense) or violations of relavity by neutrinos (doubtful at best) as models of more typical professional behavior. Gage doesn't follow this pattern at all. This doesn't indicate to me that he's a deliberate fraud, but I will certainly state that his behavior is not consistent with my expectations of a working professional in possession of his alleged epiphanies.

[ref]

They have indeed published an interesting collection of "scientific papers" at their site. None of them written by Gage, of course. He depends on others to provide the "science" part into his mission. I also think it's quite a safe bet that no better papers have ever been produced. I also think it's quite a safe bet to assume, that Gage has bombarded every single AIA member and their cousin with this material. Of course, because this material is so stupid to most people, Gage will constantly get ignored and though of as spammer (which he is).

I think that's quite frustrating for him, so he settles for the next best thing, a booth in some corner in an AIA conference, and some marketing material to hand out.

Gage indeed doesn't behave like a scientific person would, nor is he consistent with expectations that we have of a professional behavior. But I think the key to understanding his behavior lies elsewhere. He has one fact in his mind: there was a conspiracy of some kind. He is clearly on a mission to make that fact known to everyone, and inconvenient facts that disagree with his fact just don't bother him at all. They are mere bumps in his road. As stated before, he has stated he is the happiest he has ever been, almost euphoric. Not us, or any other nagging voice is going to change that. Considering this, it's no surprise that he doesn't behave like a scientific person would. I try to avoid comparisons to religion, but the behavior resembles more religious than scientific. Trying to convert a creationist with facts is an impossible task. Trying to convert a religious man on a mission with facts, a man on a mission that has made him the happiest of his life despite losing his wife and professional credibility to his mission, is an equally impossible task.

And one last point that Scott already brought up. If people still remember when he founded AE911T in 2007, he was a total amateur. People laughed at him and signed as his supporters with fake names and all that. He still had a job back then, and no way of knowing this new mission would bring him income for years. Would he deliberately risk his job and professional career just to get laughed at and get a most unreliable source of income one could imagine, donations? I think not. Unless he had found a new meaning in life and a new mission, which would be more important to him than any other thing he had had before.

Well, a couple of thoughts there.

Wonder what Gage himself thinks if he reads these.

[Scott Sommers]

Originally Posted by Oystein

I think you are being a bit unfair here. We are talking about the motivations and mental states of individuals (Gage) who hardly anyone here has met met in person or directly communicated with. Chris is one of them, so his input is valuable. And I happen to have talked to another, Jeffrey Orling, whose input might potentially be equally valuable. I think I attached the appropriate disclaimer, Scott. If I had happened to talk to Richard's best friend and that man had given me a positive report, I'd give you that as well, I just haven't. Okay? Sorry I tried to offer additional data -.-

Yes, I think I am being unfair. I owe you an apology. I am not trying to say anything positive about Gage. In fact, I think he doesn't even know what he's doing. But I do think he's sincere about what he says. I do think money is not that important him.

Originally Posted by ref

How do we know, that he hasn't already tried that? I mean put together a paper detailing his most profound insight about 9/11, and received feedback? The problem here is, that if the feedback is not what he expects/wants it to be, he would not publish it and we would never now. He is going to AIA conferences and yes he's just staying in the vendor area. Maybe that's all he can do no matter how hard he has tried to make people take him seriously? That's better than doing nothing, and maybe he can get a couple of converts in the process, plus he gets a chance of bringing the truth to more people anyway. And what a more pleasing audience than his former colleagues, who just haven't "had that moment of truth" hit them just yet.

And yes again. If you look back at the history of the intellectuals of 9/11 Truth, you see David Chandler at the 2009 annual meeting at the American Society of Criminology and Laurie Manwell's paper in the 2010 American Behavioral Scientist. I can imagine they felt this to be a very positive direction for their beliefs. I think the academic community was taken by surprise. For years, groups like JREF have been jeering at these guys about the lack of rigor in their beliefs. One of the major problems these have had is finding enough people with the know-how and the interest to do this sort of work. If we can make the comparison with religion, they have had a church since just after 2001, but finding enough capable missionaries is another story. Almost no one on any of their internet petitions has been willing to risk the ridicule that would go with the public announcement of this belief.

So I suspect there have been other attempts at conferences and publication. I agree that now that journals and conferences have been alerted to this, they are refusing to recognize these guys.

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

Well, I don't know that for a fact.

However, AE911T posts the most astonishing drivel in lieu of "Scientific Papers" at its website, and nothing there even faintly resembles an actual paper, accepted or not... so I think it's a pretty safe bet that no such paper was ever produced.

I have a real hard time coming up with any other professional, no matter how controversial his or her findings or beliefs, who behaves in such a carnival-barker, multi-level-management fashion as Mr. Gage. Think Pons and Fleischmann, or perhaps the ongoing flap over arsenic-based life (it's nonsense) or violations of relavity by neutrinos (doubtful at best) as models of more typical professional behavior. Gage doesn't follow this pattern at all. This doesn't indicate to me that he's a deliberate fraud, but I will certainly state that his behavior is not consistent with my expectations of a working professional in possession of his alleged epiphanies.

But Gage and DRG are not professionals or scientists or even scholars in any sense that you and I think about these terms. But they are visionaries, and in a sense brilliant - if only by accident. They have been able to take a profoundly anti-intellectual position and turn it into something so unrecognizable that even educated liberals can find it palatable. It's so hard to recognize their politics for what it is that I doubt even they are aware. At least Dwayne Gish knows who he is. While Richard Gage stands with ideologues of the American Patriot Movement (see this link) he thinks he's spreading a message of tolerance and freedom. All this reminds me of Hong Xiuquan and his rebellion against the Qing Dynasty.

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

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by Scott Sommers

Yes, I think I am being unfair. I owe you an apology. I am not trying to say anything positive about Gage. In fact, I think he doesn't even know what he's doing. But I do think he's sincere about what he says. I do think money is not that important him.

Could be. I see a possibilty - not saying it is so, but a logical possibility - that initally, in 2007, after his epiphany, he was convinced and idealistic, git full swing into his mission, gave up his job, his wife, his reputation, didn't care for the money but it did come in anyway. If later, say, in 2009, 2010, he started to realize his house of cards was built on quicksand, he may have found there's no easy way back and he now depends, both financially and perhaps psychologically, on continuing the saga, even if he becomes conscious of the many falsehoods.

I can accept fully that he is sincere in his belief that some foul play by others than AQ was involved in NYC, but I find it hard to accept he sincerely believes all the arguments he's presenting anymore. So a financial motive can't be fully ruled out at this point. He has granted himself salary increases from 2008 to 2009 to 2010, not by leaps and bounds, but certainly substancial ones.

[MarkLindeman]

Originally Posted by Oystein

I recently talked to someone who had been on the board of AE911T and he said that Gage "Gage refused to stop lying about stuff" and that's why h quit. Also, he claims Gage is making more now than he did as architect and that's why he is not interested in progress or submitting the petition, and he alleges that Gage is not properly making their finances open to the public.
I understand that former followers can be the most gruntled and unfair critics, but there we have someone who is close.

FWIW, in order to interpret this, I would want to know something about what the person who said it believes about the events of 9/11, what s/he thinks Gage is lying about, and the basis for the imputations of motive. Without details or context, it rings of "Monday morning quarterbacking": the team leader isn't winning, so he must be doing something wrong -- throwing to the wrong receivers, caring more about his statistics than the game situation, having too much fun off the field.... It is not uncommon for teammates to be caught grousing in this way. (I'm not sure how to translate this analogy internationally, but you probably get the idea.) I'm not defending Gage or attacking his critic, just making a point about common social behavior.

Speaking of translating, I think you mean "disgruntled," not "gruntled." Apparently "gruntled" is a word, but barely, as a back-formation from "disgruntled."

I'm inclined to think that Gage is basically telling the truth as he sees it, although he may sometimes consciously "simplify" to reach his audience. It shouldn't be hard for him to rationalize his inability to convince competent experts: they're trapped in their assumptions, they have too much to lose, they're afraid of the truth, whatever. (The relatively few social scientists who touted the 2004 U.S. exit polls as evidence of massive fraud didn't seem troubled that their peers didn't perceive the strength of their arguments.)

I suppose there are some conscious hucksters in the Truth Movement, but I have little idea who they are.

This isn't directed at you, but I agree with Mohr, Sommers and Mackey that the stuff about mental illness is unhelpful. Then again, I think characterizing the title of your chip-origin thread as a "lie" is unhelpful, too.

[Sabretooth]

Originally Posted by Oystein

Could be. I see a possibilty - not saying it is so, but a logical possibility - that initally, in 2007, after his epiphany, he was convinced and idealistic, git full swing into his mission, gave up his job, his wife, his reputation, didn't care for the money but it did come in anyway. If later, say, in 2009, 2010, he started to realize his house of cards was built on quicksand, he may have found there's no easy way back and he now depends, both financially and perhaps psychologically, on continuing the saga, even if he becomes conscious of the many falsehoods.

I can accept fully that he is sincere in his belief that some foul play by others than AQ was involved in NYC, but I find it hard to accept he sincerely believes all the arguments he's presenting anymore. So a financial motive can't be fully ruled out at this point. He has granted himself salary increases from 2008 to 2009 to 2010, not by leaps and bounds, but certainly substancial ones.

Funny. This was going to be my next talking point.

I can get behind your assessment. Sure, maybe Gage, in his great revelation of 2007, actually did believe in his new mission.

Right now, though, it’s nothing more than the money. He has no other feasible income should his AE911T well dry up. Who’s going to hire him? He’d be lucky to end up a Walmart greeter in Three Forks, Montana.

Like I said before…if he truly believed, he would have organized his 1,600 minions into creating a real science paper with real research and real conclusions. One can form an opinion just looking at his website. It’s been 10.5 years since 9/11, and he hasn’t graduated past the “asking questions” stage. He’s either really stupid, or is good at playing stupid.

[sheeplesnshills]

Originally Posted by Miragememories

Gage et al are still in debt from financing events like the 9/11 Hearings in Toronto.

Good if true but I doubt it is.

Quote:

I can't believe 9/11 has been a cash cow for anyone involved in 9/11 Truth.

argument from incredulity. A&E911 taxes says otherwise.

Quote:

Until you can "effectively" discredit evidence like the findings in the Bentham paper, you fail in your argument that "the "official story" isn't discredited by scientific evidence".

Thats not how science works MM.......Bentham and the Jones papers are a joke so require no refuting, and in any case even publishing a real paper in a real journal does not make its contents scientific fact by default. It has to be repeatable for a start.

MM[/quote]

[NoahFence]

Quote:

I've said this before: Richard Gage is wrong wrong wrong but I know him well. He is neither mentally ill nor a fraud.

Chris, if you honestly believe that, then I guess he's pulled one over on you as as well.

Sorry, he's a terrible, terrible human being - able to use the murder of 3,000 people as a hobby and a cash cow?

If I heard he got hit by a bus, I'd laugh my ass off.

[sheeplesnshills]

Originally Posted by Sabretooth

Like I said before…if he truly believed, he would have organized his 1,600 minions into creating a real science paper with real research and real conclusions. One can form an opinion just looking at his website. It’s been 10.5 years since 9/11, and he hasn’t graduated past the “asking questions” stage. He’s either really stupid, or is good at playing stupid.

I doubt if he is, or at least was, Stupid. Its not that easy to become an Architect. mental illness is a much more plausible answer and fits in with his "epiphany" story.

[NoahFence]

He's just a lying, cheating sonofabitch, conning the legitimately mentally ill out of whatever monies they have. His consistent ignoring of the most basic facts prove this. Just going to the homepage, nevermind digging into that waste of bandwidth that is his website presents at least a dozen known lies.

[sheeplesnshills]

Originally Posted by chrismohr

Just to be clear, mental illness is way off the charts from anything we're talking about on this thread. People who are attracted to epiphanies? That's how my brain works... in the last decade I collected thousands of pieces of data about the harmonic ratios of hundreds of ancient musical scales, then had an incredible ahah moment when The Grand Unified Theory of Ancient Music theory erupted from my brain all at once. It was a major musical-acoustical discovery, and great scientific achievements are also often like that. Let me tell you it's as good as any orgasm. The results of my ahah moment are fully mathematically valid and extremely esthetically useful. Is the love of "peak experiences" mental illness (I've climbed 1000 peaks in my life too BTW, and I tolerate the mundane hours but live for those moments of awe and delight and ludicrous joy)? Is religion mental illness? Is believing in 9/11 Truth mental illness?

Mental illness covers a very broad spectrum and yes much of any religion experience is only explainable as a mental breakdown. Just because the breakdown make one feel wonderful does not make it any less a breakdown.
Bi polar is one such condition. The highs are as much a symptom as the lows.

Quote:

I've dealt with mentally ill people in prisons where I've volunteered for two decades. There's people I don't like and there's people I disagree with. The mentally ill are something else altogether. I'm no psychiatrist but you badly misuse the term when you apply it to 9/11 Truth. Or religion.

That merely a political position. Religion get a bye for cultural and historical reasons not medical ones.

Quote:

I've said this before: Richard Gage is wrong wrong wrong but I know him well. He is neither mentally ill nor a fraud.

The best con men are usually very convincing. He cannot be that so obviously and demonstrably wrong without being stupid, insane or a fraud.

[chrismohr]

Originally Posted by Oystein

I recently talked to someone who had been on the board of AE911T and he said that Gage "Gage refused to stop lying about stuff" and that's why h quit. Also, he claims Gage is making more now than he did as architect and that's why he is not interested in progress or submitting the petition, and he alleges that Gage is not properly making their finances open to the public.
I understand that former followers can be the most gruntled and unfair critics, but there we have someone who is close.

Oystein I think I know who you're talking about; he and other disgruntled ex-Gage supporters have contacted me. Some have even asked me to try to communicate things to Gage that they think they can't say on their own. I tell them I don't believe in triangulated communication, and that I'm certainly not in this to help people in the movement get along with each other. They amaze me. I try to imagine myself asking Jim Fetzer if he could help me resolve my disagreements with Noah Fence!

One thing about the right-wing side of 9/11 Truth: there are constitutionalists and libertarians, and sadly, in the mix there are also a few neoNazis and racists. They represent a minority even among the right-wingers in the 9/11 Truth movement but they are there. Most of them deny to me that they are racists and deeply resent being accused of being racist themselves (I've met bunches of them in my 9/11 debates). I think these right-wing limited government types in 9/11 Truth should do more to publicly distance themselves from the small bands of neo-Nazis and/or racists in their midst and they do not. The whole movement, left to right, should do the same. Many even deny they exist, or blame me for pointing this out. One activist shrugged her shoulders and said, "9/11 Truth attracts the best people and the worst people," as if there's nothing they an do about this. People think I'm too tolerant for being so friendly with 9/11 Truth people, but on the occasion when a neo-Nazi or racist raises their head I chop it off, and not politely or respectfully. I call them out for their ugly bigotry and tell them I want no part of it. I wish everyone in the 9/11 Truth movement would do the same. Rush Limbaugh does this whenever someone makes a racist remark on his show (one of the few things I like about him).

As you all know, I'm very proud of my 22 YouTube videos rebutting Gage (which he congratulated me on, BTW). I think Ryan Mackey should be proud of his incredible white paper. And Gravy for his work. And Dave Thomas. And alienentity for his. And many others. I always think, there are so many opportunities for real truth seekers to get answers to all these supposed 9/11 mysteries. How can someone plow through 3 1/2 hours of my YouTube videos and still believe in controlled demolition? Well, soon there will be a mega-rebuttal of my videos (I'm told) and we'll find out I guess. I've even asked Richard how he and I can disagree so completely. I'll let you know if we ever figure out the answer!

[000063]

Originally Posted by Miragememories

If your disingenuous statement was true, then I would agree with that response.

Why do you not just say SAS is a liar?

Quote:

A doctor is not someone I would put at the top of my list in a discussion about the "Laws of Physics and Mathematics".

Yet Gage had to be converted by a theologian.

Quote:

You must believe the 1600+ professionals at AE911Truth are all unqualified to have such a belief if you can so casually and obnoxiously dismiss them.

Even if they are "qualified to hold such a belief", that does not mean the belief itself is not wrong.

Quote:

Such arrogance only serves to undermine your credibility. Go for it.


Why do you continue to lie rather than just state the truth and accept the limits of what has been proven?

Is it really more important to be accepted as a member of a popular clique than to respond as an individual and acknowledge that absolute statements like "zero scientific evidence exists" are bs?

MM

It's so cue how you avoid actually answering the questions, attack the people making them, and think no one notices.

[Scott Sommers]

Originally Posted by sheeplesnshills

Mental illness covers a very broad spectrum and yes much of any religion experience is only explainable as a mental breakdown. Just because the breakdown make one feel wonderful does not make it any less a breakdown.
Bi polar is one such condition. The highs are as much a symptom as the lows.




That merely a political position. Religion get a bye for cultural and historical reasons not medical ones.



The best con men are usually very convincing. He cannot be that so obviously and demonstrably wrong without being stupid, insane or a fraud.

I find it very strange that I am supporting Chris Mohr whose opinions about 9/11 conspiracy I in general think are completely wrong.

There are no doubt many mentally ill people who ascribe to the ideas of a 9/11 conspiracy. Apparently I know some of them personally. And as I have said elsewhere, Truthers on this forum admit to alcohol and drug problems, involuntary committals and other other dysfunctional behaviors with remarkable frequency and casualness. I have no doubt this is a factor.

The idea that either 9/11 conspiracy beliefs or the continuity in these beliefs can be explained by mental illness is completely wrong. Until Luke Rudkowski was ousted from We Are Change, it was the probably the most influential Truther group around. It organized and ran demonstrations. It raised tens of thousands of dollars. i can honestly say that no one else involved in this 9/11 Truth crap could get anything done without them. When you think of the public demonstration of conspiracy theory, they were it.

I t makes no sense at all to talk about WAC and its members as mentally ill. They are generally young people who aren't very well educated. Some of the ones I have talked with speak about the influence of important members whom they really trust.

Most of them are not very well- educated. Even the ones who with degrees can't seem to find jobs. They are not winners in the social mobility game. They may be pathetic losers, but that doesn't make them mentally ill.

Why would it? Do you think they sit around trying to figure out facts? Why would they? They care as much about facts as your typical person on the street who's not doing very well.

I have to ask you...have you ever talked with Truthers? Face-to-face ? have you talked with them about stuff other than conspiracy? Like hings from their daily life? Or are you replying on the description you get here on the JREF supplemented by some quick trips over to the Let's Roll Forum?

Most of them are perfectly nice people outside their messed up conspiracy world. And why wouldn't they be? Most of the people who believe the chosen will be Raptured are perfectly nice. Most of tyhe people who believe that speaking in tongues is a gift from God are perfectly nice.

Messed up ideas doesn't make you mentally ill.

[Scott Sommers]

Originally Posted by chrismohr

One thing about the right-wing side of 9/11 Truth: there are constitutionalists and libertarians, and sadly, in the mix there are also a few neoNazis and racists. They represent a minority even among the right-wingers in the 9/11 Truth movement but they are there. Most of them deny to me that they are racists and deeply resent being accused of being racist themselves (I've met bunches of them in my 9/11 debates).

This is wrong. They make up the bulk of active Truthers and almost all of the young people involved in 9/11 conspiracy beliefs. This is the edge of 9/11 conspiracy that I have studied. I have meet thousands of these people on Facebook and other forums. It might be easy to miss them when you're entering 9/11 conspiracy through those so-called 'professional groups for 9/11 Truth'. They are the conspiracy nuts you hear about working in the Ron Paul Revolution.

Originally Posted by chrismohr

I think these right-wing limited government types in 9/11 Truth should do more to publicly distance themselves from the small bands of neo-Nazis and/or racists in their midst and they do not. The whole movement, left to right, should do the same.

Chris, they can't. These are the people who do all the street work that those like your friends at AE911T need done. Without We Are Change and their network of support, there can be no street demonstrations. While Luke Rudkowski and his friends were running WAC-New York, everyone had to go to Luke to get anything done. The guy who now runs WACNYC is Craig Fitzgerakd. Craig is a member of the John Birch Society and a founding member of a neo-skinhead group that is affiliated with British fascists.

Originally Posted by chrismohr

Many even deny they exist, or blame me for pointing this out. One activist shrugged her shoulders and said, "9/11 Truth attracts the best people and the worst people," as if there's nothing they an do about this. People think I'm too tolerant for being so friendly with 9/11 Truth people, but on the occasion when a neo-Nazi or racist raises their head I chop it off, and not politely or respectfully. I call them out for their ugly bigotry and tell them I want no part of it. I wish everyone in the 9/11 Truth movement would do the same. Rush Limbaugh does this whenever someone makes a racist remark on his show (one of the few things I like about him).

In some sense, this problem you are describing in 9/11 truth can be thought of as an internal struggle between different types of American Christians. It's not just some bad guys who have infiltrated the good guys, although I'm sure that's how the 'good' Truthers describe it all the time. The bad Truthers just have their own groups. And they're bigger, more active and more linked in with American party politics.

[ergo]

Originally Posted by Scott Sommers

This is wrong. They make up the bulk of active Truthers and almost all of the young people involved in 9/11 conspiracy beliefs. This is the edge of 9/11 conspiracy that I have studied. I have meet thousands of these people on Facebook and other forums. It might be easy to miss them when you're entering 9/11 conspiracy through those so-called 'professional groups for 9/11 Truth'.

It seems easy for me to miss them here in Canada, too.

Scott's claims about the 9/11 Truth movement are entirely anecdotally based, and seem to be exaggerated to the extreme. You can see even his above statement is self contradicting: he talks both about a "bulk" of the movement and an "edge" -- presumably these mean the same thing to him?

His study that he likes to refer to, not published in any professional journal, involved following -- how many was it, Scott? 62 ? -- Facebook profiles of a single, localized, We Are Change group over a period of a year. Scott has fallen prey to a common flaw in research methodology: you only see what you focus on.

[Sword_Of_Truth]

Originally Posted by ergo

His study that he likes to refer to, not published in any professional journal

A rather hypocritical thing for a twoofer to harp on. Why is it your critics are required to publish in professional journals but the twoof movement is not?

[Sabretooth]

Originally Posted by Scott Sommers

Messed up ideas doesn't make you mentally ill.

No, they don't. However, intentionally ignoring evidence that clearly disputes your messed up idea? That's borderline dysfunctional.

[Scott Sommers]

Originally Posted by Sabretooth

No, they don't. However, intentionally ignoring evidence that clearly disputes your messed up idea? That's borderline dysfunctional.

Not even close. People do this all the time. In fact, I can say from psychological investigation of the use of facts and logic in daily cognition, it is the norm. Even highly educated people dealing with their subject matter make errors of cognition related to this. Your ability - or lack there of - to do this with unfamiliar situations might surprise you. That doesn't make it good, but it does make this a regular experience. You only notice it happening here because it's conspiracy thinking. The problem is that Gage does not appear, as he claims, to be operating inside the professional science system where the methods for use of facts and logic are valued and well understood. He has dressed himself up in its appearance but has no interest or concern in the proper use of its methods. This was also the case with Creation Science, but Gage and DRG are so much more complete in doing this that they appear to be something different. They are not, and even they appear to be fooled by what they are doing.

Now that I see it this way, it really is quite beautiful. A thing that contradicts itself so completely even its designers are fooled by its intentions.

[Sabretooth]

Originally Posted by Scott Sommers

Not even close. People do this all the time. In fact, I can say from psychological investigation of the use of facts and logic in daily cognition, it is the norm. Even highly educated people dealing with their subject matter make errors of cognition related to this. Your ability - or lack there of - to do this with unfamiliar situations might surprise you. That doesn't make it good, but it does make this a regular experience. You only notice it happening here because it's conspiracy thinking. The problem is that Gage does not appear, as he claims, to be operating inside the professional science system where the methods for use of facts and logic are valued and well understood. He has dressed himself up in its appearance but has no interest or concern in the proper use of its methods. This was also the case with Creation Science, but Gage and DRG are so much more complete in doing this that they appear to be something different. They are not, and even they appear to be fooled by what they are doing.

Now that I see it this way, it really is quite beautiful. A thing that contradicts itself so completely even its designers are fooled by its intentions.

Fair enough. But if it's not a "mental disorder" in the traditional sense, are you suggesting that maybe it's just a "mental deficiency"?

It could be that simple...where the brain just locks out facts that contradict a belief.

But my problem with Gage is that he should know better. He is, after all, an architect. It's not some cakewalk degree and requires a good deal of mental aptitude. Theoretically, he should have a good grasp of physics and science with such a field of study, am I wrong?

This is where I find his position troubling. Epiphany or no, after spending some time researching some of these ridiculous claims about WTC, he should have figured out that NIST has it 99% correct. Why continue with the charade?

The simple answer is that he held on too long. And now that AE911T is his job and only viable source of comfortable income, he has no choice but to continue. So he walks the tightrope...careful not to push his "truth" too far to actually get the investigation he preaches about, and careful not to suggest that 9/11 truthers are dumb for worshiping the golden cow.

To simplify his "job" further...he's being paid to ask for a new investigation to answer a few questions that already have answers. Are you telling me that 1,600 professional people can't come up with something better than that?

I can't help but shake the feeling that Gage is a con. He has done far too little, for what he is collecting, to push an agenda that he knows will never come to fruition.

[MarkLindeman]

Originally Posted by Sabretooth

The simple answer is that he held on too long. And now that AE911T is his job and only viable source of comfortable income, he has no choice but to continue. So he walks the tightrope...careful not to push his "truth" too far to actually get the investigation he preaches about, and careful not to suggest that 9/11 truthers are dumb for worshiping the golden cow.

To simplify his "job" further...he's being paid to ask for a new investigation to answer a few questions that already have answers. Are you telling me that 1,600 professional people can't come up with something better than that?

Wait. Are you saying that Gage could get an independent investigation if he really wanted one? If so, how? Just what tightrope is he walking?

And do you really think that any number of professionals could come up with much better arguments for controlled demolition than Gage has?

No doubt he should have seen through his own arguments by now, but I don't see how one can infer that he has.

[DGM]

Originally Posted by MarkLindeman

Wait. Are you saying that Gage could get an independent investigation if he really wanted one?

He most certainly could, He claims to have 1600+ engineers and we all know he has a decent supporter ($) base.

What exactly is stopping him from doing an "independent investigation"?

In my experience. If you throw 1600+ engineers at a problem, you get results. What has he done with this?

[alienentity]

Originally Posted by Sabretooth

This is one of the big buttons on AE911T:

http://www.ae911truth.org/images/sign-big-button.png


He's nothing more than a televangelist.

Indeed. This inspired me... that's what happens when I have too much free time!

[Sabretooth]

Originally Posted by MarkLindeman

Wait. Are you saying that Gage could get an independent investigation if he really wanted one? If so, how?

Yes.
...well...kind of.

First things first, he would have to get something together...something worthwhile. Grab a few minions and sit down and really hash out some research. Come up with some models based on the available evidence. Work the data to conclusion. etc. etc.

But...I say "kind of" because, by the time he runs his models, Gage (or his people) is going to notice that his "questions" are silly.

That leads into...

Quote:

Just what tightrope is he walking?

Right now...Gage is basically posing questions, ignoring the answers, then saying we need a new investigation to answer the question. Nothing beyond that. To his followers, Gage looks like he's fighting the good fight, but he's not pushing too hard. He's content to just pump out a couple of youtube vids (that all say the same thing, just with different morons celebrities) a couple times a year.

Quote:

And do you really think that any number of professionals could come up with much better arguments for controlled demolition than Gage has?

I'm not sure what you mean. His arguments are full of holes and downright lies. If his arguments are so convincing, why hasn't AE911 broken down the science and got some papers out to the scientific community for review?

Quote:

No doubt he should have seen through his own arguments by now, but I don't see how one can infer that he has.

Why not? Gage has been at this for 5+ years. He has put more work into the AE911 website than any 9/11 research. Seriously, go watch a couple of his youtube vids. It's the same exact thing...in every single video.

When he stops JAQ'ing off and starts to produce some research, then maybe I'll change my opinion of his motives.