Do They Ever Get the Irony?
Richard Gage is on Kevin Barrett's radio show again (available here) complaining about how mean his critics are to him. From 33 minutes in:
Barrett: How have the people who have tried to uphold the official version of 9/11 responded to this. You have had a fair amount of time now Richard going around giving talks all over the country, and the world, and you have drawn huge audiences everywhere from here to New Zealand. You have drawn the flak of the so called debunkers, people who are rather desparately trying to uphold the official story. At one point we were trying to have some 9/11 debates, between those of us on our side and somebody on the other side, and we never could find anyone on the other side willing to participate in these debates. What is your sense of what kind of opposition we have, do they have any valid points or are they completely blowing smoke? Have they alerted you to any weaknesses in your argument?
Gage: Well what they do is obscure what we are saying with our associations, or manufactured associations and calling us names like conspiracy theorists. What they don't do is look at the evidence that we provide clearly, and provide rational explanations as to where it might be coming from if it is not from explosive controlled demolition.
First of all, the idea that there are no substantive objections to Gage is idiotic. This blog has made dozens of posts pointing out the weakness of his arguments, the number of threads on the JREF forum on Gage and his organization are beyond counting, and there is even a website entirely dedicated to the subject. I have been following this subject as closely as anyone, and I have never seen Gage address any of this criticism.
But perhaps more bizarrely, does Gage realize the irony of going on Kevin Barrett's radio show, which he has been on several times already, and complaining about being smeared through "manufactured associations"? Hello! This is the very same Kevin Barrett who has repeatedly called for the execution of people he disagrees with, who called the Holocaust a "destructive myth", who constantly rants that the Jews control the US press, and has openly promoted the violent overthrow of the US government. Could these idiots make it any easier for us?
Labels: Kevin Barrett, Richard Gage
posted by James B. @ 5:23 PM
45 comments
45 Comments:
From his wikipedia entry:
Of Noam Chomsky Barrett wrote: "If he convinces even one person to do something other than work for 9/11 truth, he may as well have personally murdered all 6 billion people on earth."
Of Amy Goodman, Barrett wrote: "Amy, you will one day find yourself on the scaffold, condemned to hang alongside the other Goebbels-style traitors and mass-murder-coverup-conspirators from the corporate media you pretend to criticize...."
"Even if the 6-million-deliberately-murdered-for-purely-ethnic-reasons figure is correct — which it very well may be," writes Barrett in the e-mail, "I have grown agnostic on that after studying the Big Lies of Zionism, I would still have to characterize the Holocaust as it is taught in the U.S. as a hideously destructive myth."
Interesting. This guy has a lot of violent fantasies and seems very, well, unstable.
It is true the debunker community has taken issue with the horseshit Dick Gage and his ilk spew. I suspect what he is really getting at is their desire for a taxpayer financed platform that will fund troofer activities and give their claims respectability, under the guise of "debate." Of course they aren't going to get that, sorry, Dick!
Of Noam Chomsky, Barrett wrote: "If he convinces even one person to do something other than work for 9/11 truth, he may as well have personally murdered all 6 billion people on earth."
I wonder how many people Barrett has turned off to 9-11 Truth.
thats HIDEOUSLY destructive myth!
Gage: "Well what they do is obscure what we are saying with our associations, or manufactured associations and calling us names like conspiracy theorists. What they don't do is look at the evidence that we provide clearly, and provide rational explanations as to where it might be coming from if it is not from explosive controlled demolition."
James, even if they tried, they could not make it any easier for us.
If you're not convinced, read Gage's comment again. Irony? Where do you even start?
I'm convinced that Gage, and most dedicated truthers, have a genuine case of delusion, or something pretty close.
Add a bit of racism, be in 'Arabs in caves' or anti-American sentiments, plus a couple of other issues, and you end up with the same screwed-up mindset we get from the truthers here.
It really is now like poking fun at the inmates.
As for Barrett, he seems to be another case altogether. He does like the idea of death to others, eh?
Gage does have a point, we in the debunking-Jew/Nazi-McChimpy cult do obscure his argument...with laughter.
I know that I cannot help myself.
It must be noted that the authors of this blog have a rather weak idea as to what constitutes formal logic hence while they may believe that "This blog has made dozens of posts pointing out the weakness of his arguments..." that doesn't automatically make it so.
What Gage says, in so many ways, is that the proposed mechanism of destruction of the WTC buildings 1, 2 and 7 is impossible. How do you prove him wrong? By demonstrating that what he says is impossible is indeed possible.
Here's a good place to start, IMHO:
The Progressive Collapse Challenge
Good to see Boris sticking strictly to the entries title.
As usual, Bore-ass cites a 9/11 twoof site as somehow proof of his claims. Twoof sites have as much credibility on the topic of 9/11 as child molesters have regarding caring for children.
Say, Bore-ass, you still haven't provided evidence the public is fleeing what you call "the official story" in droves.
You don't understand the concept of burden of proof. I will get around to taking your tests as soon as you prove it is possible to secretely rig three large buildings with supermagiconanothermite charges which make no sound and leave no signs of themselves.
How do you prove him wrong? By demonstrating that what he says is impossible is indeed possible."
Wouldn’t you know the idiot would lecture us on "formal logic" and then get the concept of burden of proof wrong?
Maybe Boris missed the part where the WTC progressively collapsed from the floors with the fires downward. Any collapse is going to be progressive, a classic controlled demolition starts from the bottom up, An uncontrolled structural failure stated at the point of the initiation failure. In the WTC that was the floors with the fires.
The consensus of opinion among the most experienced people in the field is unanimous, fire cause the collapse of the towers. Have proof it was something else? Let see your proof.
What Gage says, in so many ways, is that the proposed mechanism of destruction of the WTC buildings 1, 2 and 7 is impossible. How do you prove him wrong? By demonstrating that what he says is impossible is indeed possible.
This is such typical Boris Epstein logic. His proposition, however unsupported and ludicrous, is the null hypothesis and it is the obligation of the rest of the universe to disprove it, even if reams of such disproof already exist.
And here are the first three words of Boris' "challenge" link:
Build a structure
"Build a structure"? Seriously? You assholes can't be bothered to submit a proper scientific paper, but other people are hereby ordered to BUILD A FUCKING BUILDING, and destroy it, for the sole purpose of disproving 911whateveritisthisweek.com?
What egomania.
Here's a good place to start, IMHO:
The Progressive Collapse Challenge
"CHALLENGE #1:
Build a structure with a vertical aspect ratio of at least 2 (twice as tall as it is wide) and induce it to undergo top-down total progressive collapse. "
Well of course this first challenge is ridiculous in itself, to reproduce the forces in the original WTC you would need to build another 1300ft 110 story WTC. If you are know you physics you would know any scale structure could not model the conditions of the full scale structure. No way to reproduce the gravitational force that get disproportionately greater as size increases.
No surprise Boris's site would get this so wrong given the intelligence level of truthers like Boris. They are like children in that respect, Believing they can use toys to reproduce the real world.
This has not stopped some idiots from building model WTCs out of all kind of materials much to the amusement of the informed.
Again Boris, Hoe do you explain this site you proposed got the basic physics so wrong. How do you explain that you could not see how wrong they were. Just not very bright, are you Boris.
Kyte: "a classic controlled demolition starts from the bottom up"
And Kyte is unable to conceive of the notion of an an unclassic controlled demolition. A bottom-up demolition was in this case impossible, both because it would not simulate a fire-induced collapse and because it ran too much risk of generating toppling forces.
Re: Barett. You want to see something scary? The guy seems to think this picture makes him lok good! http://truthjihad.blogspot.com/2010/02/truth-jihadi-hurls-book-at-top-ten.html
911whateveritisthisweek.com
lol!!!!
Embarrassing that jimmy only gets 15 replies to this thread over at JREF.
Some tard named chewy gets more action over there. Whats the deal?
"Anonymous said...
Embarrassing that jimmy only gets 15 replies to this thread over at JREF.
Some tard named chewy gets more action over there. Whats the deal?"
Pick a name fucktard!
See...now I am laughing.
It's amazing how much Boris Epstein's rhetorical method is like that of Brian Good. I guess it's about the "truth" movement attracting their personality type: the loser who fancies himself a misunderstood genius.
...You guys don't understand how easy it is to feel smart around here.
I come here for that. What about you, New Yorker? Did you come here to assist me in that endeavor?
"And Kyte is unable to conceive of the notion of an an unclassic controlled demolition. A bottom-up demolition was in this case impossible, both because it would not simulate a fire-induced collapse and because it ran too much risk of generating toppling forces."
Here we have another fine example of utter stupidity. The reality of the physical world at that scale precludes a building of that size from "Toppling". They would only fall down towards the force of gravity. Again we see the child's view of physics that truther poses. But because they lack a refined education, IQ, and mental acuity truthers believed a crackpot theologian like David Ray Griffin when he said the building should have fallen over. Hell these were the fools who thought Gage was making a point when he dropped boxes onto each other.
No wonder the truthers you meet in the wild are all fast food service industry personnel, who would hire people of such low thinking ability?
...You guys don't understand how easy it is to feel smart around here."
Well your the idiot who believes the WTC were a controlled demolition. Not us.
"Well your the idiot who believes the WTC were a controlled demolition. Not us."
Nope. Never did I assert this. But unlike you guys, I consider it a possibility. I see serious problems with both sides of the argument, and anybody asserting the issue is settled is simply bullshitting.
"Nope. Never did I assert this. But unlike you guys, I consider it a possibility."
Just like the Moon Landings could have been faked, or a UFO could have crashed in Roswell? The Earth could only be 6000 years old.
I could step outside the house today and get hit by a meteor, but the real world realm of the probable it is right up they with being able to rig a building for a controlled demolition and have that demolition occur at exactly the floors the plane hit. AND all this with no one noticing, NO real experts thinking it was a controlled demolition. The only people saying it was a controlled demolition are theologians, crackpot failed professors and people with an agenda to push. It has all the features of pure bullshit.
Then we have you, too much of a coward or to stupid to take a stand and call out the idiots like Brian Good. The Big Tent idea, get as many as you can in the tent even if most are loonies. So you will pump the pseudo-liberal rhetoric out and in the process embarrass real liberal like myself with your mushy thinking. Note the "look at me... I am a radical!!" posturing. When in fact you are nothing but a doltish kid pissed off at the world because you are so lacking in skills and prospects and want to blame anyone but yourself for your situation.
Then we have you, too much of a coward or to stupid to take a stand and call out the idiots like Brian Good. The Big Tent idea, get as many as you can in the tent even if most are loonies. So you will pump the pseudo-liberal rhetoric out and in the process embarrass real liberal like myself with your mushy thinking. Note the "look at me... I am a radical!!" posturing. When in fact you are nothing but a doltish kid pissed off at the world because you are so lacking in skills and prospects and want to blame anyone but yourself for your situation.
Huh? What do you mean call out? Call Brian Good out on what?
Huh? What do you mean call out? Call Brian Good out on what?
Well then I guess you are as ignorant as Brian Good if you can't see the stupidity he is promoting. I didn't expect more from a truther, it takes a certain inborn low mental capacity to buy the controlled demolition thing as even remotely possible. Maybe one day you may understand.
Kyte, Dr. Van Romero said it looked just like a controlled demolition. FDNY Chief Ray Downey and structural engineer Ronald Hamburger thought explosives were involved.
Your claim that truthers are fast food workers is shown to be an abrud lie by the list of 1000 architects and engineers. You live in a fantasy world. A boring fantasy world.
"Dr. Van Romero said it looked just like a controlled demolition."
It LOOKED LIKE a controlled demolition is not IT IS a controlled demolition.
Sweet jebus, how often does this have to be pointed out?
"FDNY Chief Ray Downey and structural engineer Ronald Hamburger thought explosives were involved."
THOUGHT explosives were involved, THOUGHT.
Sweet jebus, how often does this have to be pointed out?
Also, if my memory is correct, were not these comments made just after the event? Or even during it, when WTC7 was still standing?
You know, the time when firefighters thought a third plane was coming?
Unfuckingbelievable.
And, get this: I once suggested the same to another idiot truther in another blog, and guess what the dickwad said in reply: it was done to confuse them!
As if they weren't already fucking confused already.
Imbeciles.
I meant, the truther said firefighters thought a third plane was coming because it was done on purpose to confuse them.
"Well then I guess you are as ignorant as Brian Good if you can't see the stupidity he is promoting. I didn't expect more from a truther, it takes a certain inborn low mental capacity to buy the controlled demolition thing as even remotely possible. Maybe one day you may understand."
There I was, expecting you to say something remotely sensible. My bad.
Nope. Never did I assert this. But unlike you guys, I consider it a possibility.
I think you're a half-truther who just defends their ideas for the purpose of fighting with right-wingers. You really hate them, did they drive you into the arms of the truther movement?
"I think you're a half-truther who just defends their ideas for the purpose of fighting with right-wingers. You really hate them, did they drive you into the arms of the truther movement?"
I'll have you know that made me laugh out loud. (No ill intent, I just thought it was funny)
Perhaps there's a kernel of truth in there. But the history of false flag operations and the current slippery slope towards totalitarianism, constantly using the GWOT as excuse, has me deeply worried.
Paul w wrote: Sweet jebus, how often does this have to be pointed out?
Gee, paul, if you wouldn't take things out of context, maybe you wouldn't need to get so indignant.
Shyte wrote at 10:57 that nobody noticed the controlled demolition and no experts thought it was a controlled demolition. I pointed out that he was wrong.
He's also wrong (after being repeatedly shown what's right) in claiming it was impossible to start a controlled demolition so that it looked like it began at the impact floors. Radio control would allow the collapse to start anywhere you wanted.
Paul W.Shyte,you are are creeping moron.Many people at he site commented that they thought there were explosives involved in the Twin Towers' "collapses".There are clips where news reporters quote high level FDNY saying that they were working from a theory that explosives were "planted in the buildings".It's only logical,dozens and dozens of firemen were reporting huge explosions at many spots in the Towers.They made it plain in their oral testionies that they were huge explosions.Of course,your mad Cult insists that veteran firemen wouldn't know the difference between floors slamming into floors (Har har hardee har har!) and real live explosive detonations.Ah,the insane Debunker Cult,sadly dependent on ludicrous leaps in faith and complete denial of stark reality even as it crushes them to dust.
Kyte, Dr. Van Romero said it looked just like a controlled demolition.
Who cares? A lot of things "look" similar but have vastly different mechanisms behind them. Mt. Rainier might look a lot like Denali, but they were formed in vastly different processes.
(BTW, Brian, that's how you make effective use of analogies.)
FDNY Chief Ray Downey and structural engineer Ronald Hamburger thought explosives were involved.
I'd like to see Mr. Hamburger's quote, please. Also, quoting people who died on 9/11 is pretty convenient, since they can't call you an ignorant loon.
Your claim that truthers are fast food workers is shown to be an abrud lie by the list of 1000 architects and engineers.
Nobody cares about the 1000 architects and engineers, Petgoat.
You live in a fantasy world. A boring fantasy world.
False. You're the one clinging to absurd fantasies, like the one where NIST said the towers fell "essentially in free-fall".
It just shows how much you need to see a psychiatrist, Petgoat.
Many people at he site commented that they thought there were explosives involved in the Twin Towers' "collapses".
Jeezus H. Christ, we're still on this shit?
I'd like to see Mr. Hamburger's quote, please. Also, quoting people who died on 9/11 is pretty convenient, since they can't call you an ignorant loon.
For fuck's sake, is there no end to your McCarthyist slander, you obsessed, low-down poison-tongued snake? You disgusting fascist pig? Do your jackboot licking fantasies now include 9/11 victims enthusiastically joining you in your loathsome cultist anti-dissent witch-hunt? Just tie a car to your leg and release the brakes near a cliff, okay?
For fuck's sake, is there no end to your McCarthyist slander, you obsessed, low-down poison-tongued snake? You disgusting fascist pig? Do your jackboot licking fantasies now include 9/11 victims enthusiastically joining you in your loathsome cultist anti-dissent witch-hunt? Just tie a car to your leg and release the brakes near a cliff, okay?
Are we sure it's steroids that our man here is on? I'm beginning to think angel dust mixed with crack cocaine might be the culprit
Mind you, the above gibberish was posted in response to me asking a delusional liar to back up his claim with evidence. How "McCarthyist"!
" Roid Rage said...
"He was on the sidelines cheering the fascists on.
Nice pom-poms by the way."
PWWWFFFFRRRT!!
This is me taking a big, smelly, damn near toxic dump on your son's military service again, neo-fascist."
Bears repeating.
Just to expose to the world what a child you truly are.
According to the domain registration, the owner of 911truth(dot)org has chosen to hide their identity from the public. I then checked ae911truth(dot)org . The owner of that site has also hidden their identity from public view. (For those not domain savvy it means that they chose to sign up the site through a proxy service to make the owner's names anonymous.)
(Source ScepCop)
Please Donate More...
Paul Isaac Jr (NYsentinel at Large)
Thanks Paul. You have given me some good insights. What do the perps fear most?
That would be donations to 9/11 activist groups and certainly organized activism by 9/11 families, survivors and first responders.
Thanks, good strategy tips! Say hi to your handler =)
<3
Who cares? A lot of things "look" similar but have vastly different mechanisms behind them.
The destruction looked just like a demolition to Dr. Van Romero, an expert on the subject. He said it was "too methodical", which is the same thing Chief Ray Downey, on of the country's premier collapse experts, said.
that's how you make effective use of analogies.
Right, to deceive by dishonest framing.
I'd like to see Mr. Hamburger's quote, please.
You can't google <<<>>?
quoting people who died on 9/11 is pretty convenient, since they can't call you an ignorant loon. What Chief Ray Downey said about explosives was reported by a priest.
Nobody cares
This is your continuing, braying refrain when confronted with your lies.
You're the one clinging to absurd fantasies, like the one where NIST said the towers fell "essentially in free-fall".
You're a liar, NY. Both Section 6.14.4 and the FAQs say the towers came down essentially in free fall.
It just shows how much you need to see a psychiatrist, Petgoat.
I guess so. Not at all.
Thanks, good strategy tips! Say hi to your handler
Oh come on you're not seriously accusing bloggers of being state agents now are you?
That is so inforwars.
NoIdentity: you're warm.
Here's why.
Now see the comment section and give me a coherent explanation for this behavior.
Post a Comment
<< Home