Tuesday, February 08, 2011

Richard Gage Admits He Has Poor Judgment

There has been a bit of a troofer civil war going over the CIT promoted no-plane-at-the-Pentagon theory, where the opponents of this contend that anyone promoting this theory must be some sort of COINTEL disinfo operative. Richard Gage, one of the more prominent appeal to authority fallacy characters in the movement has caused quite a controversy by endorsing their viewpoint. Now, in response to this criticism he has now unendorsed, them.

In early 2009, I watched the “National Security Alert” video by the Citizen Investigation Team (CIT) where recollections of 10 eyewitness accounts of the attack on the Pentagon were presented (of many more that were interviewed). These accounts included the witnesses’ recollection of the path being taken by the plane prior to impact. The path that many of them recalled was to the north of the former CITGO gas station. Based on these few accounts CIT presented its case that the plane flew over the Pentagon since the damage trail was not consistent with the north path.

My main focus relative to 9/11 had been on the destruction of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers. I had not been able to spend much time on the Pentagon issue. I was initially impressed by CIT’s presentation and, more than a year and a half ago, provided a short statement of support for their efforts.

It took him nearly two years to figure out that they were a bunch of idiots? This is someone who by his own account studies 9/11 full-time? His excuse that he doesn't focus on the Pentagon is ridiculous. Hell, it took Pat and I about 10 minutes to figure out how idiotic this theory is, and we are just a couple of part-time bloggers. Gage considers himself one of the foremost authorities in the world on these issues, yet he still endorses theories which he himself admits are dishonestly created and not factually based. Pathetic.

Labels: ,

128 Comments:

At 08 February, 2011 17:46, Blogger Ian G. said...

Well, since Gage is a businessman engaged in the time-honored business of "swindling people", this is probably a business decision. He probably saw the CIT market as ripe for expansion and figured they could be a new source of revenue, but after the quarterly reports came in, he realized his brand equity was being damaged by associating with CIT, and so he withdrew from that market.

He'll probably write it off as a loss on his taxes.

 
At 08 February, 2011 22:59, Blogger Pat said...

Yes, James, it has only taken about 57 months, but we have finally gotten about half of the idiots to admit they were wrong about the Pentagon not being hit by a big plane (although I doubt the number is 50% yet who think it was Flight 77).

 
At 09 February, 2011 06:29, Blogger Bill said...

Way to backpeddle Richie.

 
At 09 February, 2011 06:33, Blogger Bill said...

"CIT used and presented only those portions of their witness reports which fit their conclusion."

Did he really post this? Really...

 
At 09 February, 2011 06:41, Blogger James B. said...

Another interesting point is that Gage calls for them to purge all mention of his endorsement. But some of the endorsements for his organization are years old, I doubt most of those people still endorse his views. Hell, the Patriots Question 9/11 site is full of people who are dead, some died before 9/11. I seriously doubt they continue to endorse the truth movement.

 
At 09 February, 2011 07:03, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

My main focus relative to 9/11 had been on the destruction of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers.

I'd hate to be Gage, with 20+ years of experience under his belt being an architect, he just wasted those years on flimsy conspiracy theories without merit.

 
At 09 February, 2011 08:09, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

They have a Faeebook page and I have been commenting over there driving the kooks nuts and being called a paid government agent. I doubt they will post this on FB, don't want to drive the no-planers away do he? So I posted it in a comment to see the reaction. As is typical with truther most there buy the no-plane scenario.

 
At 09 February, 2011 08:23, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

Their Facebook page is in typical truther fashion rather deceptive. When you go there you only see post from Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth. You have to click Others to see post from visitors. Maybe that is because some are from debunkers?
http://www.facebook.com/ae911truth

 
At 09 February, 2011 08:35, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

A & E For 9/11 Truth is just 1 big joke.

 
At 09 February, 2011 09:08, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Dave, where the hell can you post on their facebook page?

 
At 09 February, 2011 10:37, Blogger Bill said...

You have to "Like" the page, then you can comment.

 
At 09 February, 2011 12:57, Blogger Dave Kyte said...

Dave, where the hell can you post on their facebook page?

You have to "Like" them and then you can post to their page and make comments.

At the moment I am have lots of fun with a goof who says a nuclear bomb was used to turn steel to dust?

I did post the Gage Pentagon turn around, the silence is deafening.

 
At 09 February, 2011 14:59, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

Thanks Dave!

 
At 09 February, 2011 15:08, Blogger Triterope said...

he realized his brand equity was being damaged by associating with CIT, and so he withdrew from that market

Yeah, that was probably the thought process. Don't know if I agree with it, though. The 9-11 Truth market is too small to stand much fragmentation.

More importantly, Gage actually had a pretty smart position on CIT: calling their work "worthy of further investigation" (or some such wording) without really endorsing them. Everybody in Twoofyworld seemed OK with that. Maybe he should have left well enough alone.

 
At 09 February, 2011 15:41, Blogger snug.bug said...

It wasn't a question of poor judgment, it was a matter of a policy of being nice to everyone--even obvious con artists like Willie and blatant bigots like Barrett. He probably thought he had good reasons for such a policy, but it seems he has better reasons for making an exception for CIT.

 
At 09 February, 2011 16:39, Blogger Triterope said...

obvious con artists like Willie and blatant bigots like Barrett

Wow. Out of all the people in the 9-11 Truth movement, you picked those two. Who could have seen that coming?

 
At 09 February, 2011 17:12, Blogger Ian G. said...

It wasn't a question of poor judgment, it was a matter of a policy of being nice to everyone--even obvious con artists like Willie and blatant bigots like Barrett. He probably thought he had good reasons for such a policy, but it seems he has better reasons for making an exception for CIT.

No, it wasn't "being nice to everyone", it was trying to milk every last penny from every gullible cretin in the truth movement. Given how few people are actually truthers, this is what Gage needs to do to keep himself employed.

 
At 09 February, 2011 18:46, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

It wasn't a question of poor judgment, it was a matter of a policy of being nice to everyone--even obvious con artists like Willie and blatant bigots like Barrett.

Trusting everybody is poor judgment.

 
At 09 February, 2011 19:06, Blogger snug.bug said...

Where do you get the idea that he trusted them? I said he was nice to them.

 
At 09 February, 2011 20:44, Blogger Richard Gage's Testicles said...

Where do you get the idea that he trusted them? I said he was nice to them.

You're saying he endorsed CIT's work but didn't mean it?

 
At 09 February, 2011 23:25, Blogger snug.bug said...

I must admit that's a very good question, and one I'm not qualified to answer.

 
At 10 February, 2011 06:08, Blogger Neighborhood Rationalist said...

Finally got an e-mail question about our use of the term "9/11 Denial." Thought you guys might find the post interesting.

 
At 10 February, 2011 07:23, Blogger Ian G. said...

I must admit that's a very good question, and one I'm not qualified to answer.

Wow, Brian admits he doesn't know enough to talk about a subject! You also don't know anything about 9/11, Brian, so why don't you just admit that instead of posting hilariously ignorant spam?

 
At 10 February, 2011 09:16, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I didn't say I didn't know enough to talk about the subject. I said I wasn't qualified to answer the question. You are not competent to read simple declarative sentences.

 
At 10 February, 2011 09:48, Blogger GuitarBill said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 10 February, 2011 09:54, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat molester is "qualified" to answer questions, provided you define "qualified" as the ability to lie and split hairs like a third-rate ambulance chaser with a gerbil shoved up his backside.

And the goat molester's opinion is gold...in the worthless opinion of the goat molester. To everyone else, his opinion is a pile of unsubstantiated nonsense.

 
At 10 February, 2011 10:17, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, most of what I supply is actually "analysis" rather than "opinion". I'm quite confident that you don't know the difference.

Opinion is a field in which I have little interest and for which I have little use. And it's most of what most of you guys trade in, here. The reason most of you guys don't value my analysis is because it interferes with your opinions.

 
At 10 February, 2011 10:36, Blogger GuitarBill said...

The goat molester prevaricates, "...GutterBall, most of what I supply is actually 'analysis' rather than 'opinion'. I'm quite confident that you don't know the difference."

Another example of the dishonesty that drips from every comment you write, goat molester.

Your worthless opinion is not "analysis." Dressing up your unsubstantiated opinion as "analysis" is bunkum, hokum, flapdoodle and balderdash.

If the crap you scribble to the forum was remotely true, and you possessed the "google skills" you brag about constantly, it would be child's play for you to provide hyperlinks to credible sources that substantiate the nonsense you spew like a fire hose. But you can't do that, can you dipstick?

The goat molester bald-faced lies, "...Opinion is a field in which I have little interest and for which I have little use. And it's most of what most of you guys trade in, here."

Really? No kidding?

Then perhaps you can explain why you utterly fail to substantiate your idiotic assertions?

"...The reason most of you guys don't value my analysis is because it interferes with your opinions."

And that's spin worthy of that loudmouth Bill O'Reilly--nothing more, nothing less.

Bottom line: No hyperlinks from credible sources that substantiate your so-called "analysis," no cigar, gerbil boi.

 
At 10 February, 2011 10:42, Blogger snug.bug said...

GutterBall, I don't provide links because you guys aren't worth the trouble. And there's no point in substantiating anything when it will just be buried under dumbspam.

The poor quality of the information and opinions of posters such as you and Ian make this forum pretty worthless.

 
At 10 February, 2011 10:55, Blogger GuitarBill said...

"...GutterBall, I don't provide links because you guys aren't worth the trouble."

Another bald-faced lie.

The truth: You can't provide hyperlinks to substantiate your assertions because you're an habitual liar, who, in a sane world, would be committed to an insane asylum.

"...And there's no point in substantiating anything when it will just be buried under dumbspam."

Typical "truther" neo-Nazi working from Hitler's play book, Mein Kampf: Always accuse your opponent of the crimes you commit.

"...The poor quality of the information and opinions of posters such as you and Ian make this forum pretty worthless."

Yeah, I suppose that bilge explains why the "truth" movement has the "conspirators" on the run. After all, the bogus information you spew like a fire hose is so compelling that the "truth" movement continually fails take their "case" to a court of law.

The proof's in the pudding, goat molester. And your insipid theories utterly fail every test.

 
At 10 February, 2011 11:18, Blogger Ian G. said...

GutterBall, most of what I supply is actually "analysis" rather than "opinion".

No, most of what you supply is delusional religious certainty that 9/11 was an inside job. The rest is your sex obsession with Willie Rodriguez.

The reason most of you guys don't value my analysis is because it interferes with your opinions.

No, we don't value your "analysis" because they're nonsensical.

GutterBall, I don't provide links because you guys aren't worth the trouble.

False. You don't provide links because you don't want us to find where you've lied or quote mined things.

And there's no point in substantiating anything when it will just be buried under dumbspam.

Well, you could post less gibberish about "widows" or "essentially in free-fall" and that would clear up the "dumbspam" pretty quickly.

The poor quality of the information and opinions of posters such as you and Ian make this forum pretty worthless.

Seek professional help.

 
At 10 February, 2011 11:45, Blogger snug.bug said...

See what I mean?

 
At 10 February, 2011 12:15, Blogger GuitarBill said...

No, we don't see what you mean.

All we see is your boundless intellectual dishonesty.

 
At 10 February, 2011 12:50, Blogger snug.bug said...

Would it be too much to ask for a hyperlink to a credible source supporting that opinion? Thanks in advance.

 
At 10 February, 2011 13:54, Blogger Ian G. said...

See what I mean?

Yes, you mean to be taken seriously by the people here, but we just laugh at you because you're obviously mentally ill, and then you get upset and call people "girls".

This has been going on for 2 years. Have you gotten any closer to a new investigation in that time, Brian? It seems like you're just wasting your time here.

 
At 10 February, 2011 16:39, Blogger Triterope said...

The reason most of you guys don't value my analysis is because it interferes with your opinions.

Brian, I very much DO value your analysis. It gives me much-needed laughs.

 
At 10 February, 2011 22:25, Blogger snug.bug said...

I know, you laugh at the fact that the 9/11 widows only got 27 answers to 273 questions. You laugh at the fact that Condi lied under oath. You laugh at the fact that 5000 al Qaeda and Taliban fighters were allowed to walk and fly out of Afghanistan. Life is nothing but yucks to you.

 
At 11 February, 2011 07:51, Blogger Ian G. said...

I know, you laugh at the fact that the 9/11 widows only got 27 answers to 273 questions.

No, we laugh at your claim that some "widows" actually have questions because nobody cares.

You laugh at the fact that Condi lied under oath.

No, we just don't see that as evidence of an inside job.

You laugh at the fact that 5000 al Qaeda and Taliban fighters were allowed to walk and fly out of Afghanistan.

No, we laugh at this insane claim made by a failed janitor, liar, and sex stalker who was thrown out of the truth movement.

Life is nothing but yucks to you.

I know life has been tough for you, Brian. It's not easy being a middle-aged man with no job, no friends, no family, and nothing to do all day but post babbling nonsense on an obscure blog. This is why I tell you to see a psychiatrist. They can help you to fix your life before it's too late.

 
At 11 February, 2011 10:15, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, 5000 al Qaeda and Taliban fighters were allowed to walk and fly out of Afghanistan. That's a fact.

The Christian Science Monitor reports that 1600 were allowed to walk out of Tora Bora, and the New Yorker reports that 4000 were allowed to fly out of Kunduz. One of the warlords we hired to guard Tora Bora was seen by a CSM reporter in a hotel lobby in J'bad selling letters of safe passage to al Qaeda reps.

 
At 11 February, 2011 10:16, Blogger snug.bug said...

If you would bother to do a little research instead of confusing your imaginings for reality, you know know these things.

 
At 11 February, 2011 10:26, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, 5000 al Qaeda and Taliban fighters were allowed to walk and fly out of Afghanistan. That's a fact.

"Allowed"? Do you have the order from President Bush telling the military to stand down and allow these fighters to leave?

You make up your facts.

If you would bother to do a little research instead of confusing your imaginings for reality, you know know these things.

My, such squealing!

 
At 11 February, 2011 10:55, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, they were allowed. The Air Force controlled the skies of Afghanistan. No plane could fly from Kunduz to Pakistan without the Air Force's tolerance. Do you know how many planes it takes to move 4000 men?

The fighters were allowed to walk out of Tora Bora. Nobody stopped them. Only one of the trails out was bombed. There were two. The trail crossed a highway. Nobody guarded it. Dalton Fury said that every Delta Force plan for getting bin Laden at Tora Bora was overruled by the brass. The Times of London said a British strike force got within 20 minutes of bin Laden, and were pulled off so the Americans could get the kill, but the Americans were so slow he got away.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/article729856.ece

You don't know what you're talking about. I don't need to make up facts. I go where the facts are, and where they're needed.

 
At 11 February, 2011 11:03, Blogger Triterope said...

I know, you laugh at the fact that the 9/11 widows only got 27 answers to 273 questions.

(SFX: Laugh track)

You laugh at the fact that Condi lied under oath.

(SFX: Laugh track)

You laugh at the fact that 5000 al Qaeda and Taliban fighters were allowed to walk and fly out of Afghanistan.

(SFX: Louder, more raucous laugh track)

Life is nothing but yucks to you.

(SFX: Louder and more raucuous laugh track accompanied by applause)

 
At 11 February, 2011 11:08, Blogger snug.bug said...

Thanks for proving my point.

 
At 11 February, 2011 11:18, Blogger Triterope said...

I agree with your point, you fucking idiot.

 
At 11 February, 2011 11:26, Blogger snug.bug said...

Actually, I doubt you do. My point is not merely factual, not merely that you think the shoddy treatment of the victims of 9/11 is a laughing matter. An implicit judgment is involved, and I doubt you agree with that.

 
At 11 February, 2011 11:32, Blogger Triterope said...

Jesus Fucking Christ, Brian, can't you just agree with me WHEN I'M AGREEING WITH YOU?

 
At 11 February, 2011 11:37, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, they were allowed. The Air Force controlled the skies of Afghanistan. No plane could fly from Kunduz to Pakistan without the Air Force's tolerance. Do you know how many planes it takes to move 4000 men?

More mindless innuendo, not a single piece of evidence that they were "allowed" to escape.

The fighters were allowed to walk out of Tora Bora. Nobody stopped them. Only one of the trails out was bombed. There were two. The trail crossed a highway. Nobody guarded it. Dalton Fury said that every Delta Force plan for getting bin Laden at Tora Bora was overruled by the brass. The Times of London said a British strike force got within 20 minutes of bin Laden, and were pulled off so the Americans could get the kill, but the Americans were so slow he got away.

Innuendo, innuendo, innuendo. Not a single fact to be found. Just like your endless babbling about 9/11 and the inside job you believe it to be.

You don't know what you're talking about. I don't need to make up facts. I go where the facts are, and where they're needed.

False. You make up your facts.

 
At 11 February, 2011 11:47, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, which of these indisputable facts do you dispute?

The Air Force controlled the skies of Afghanistan.

No plane could fly from Kunduz to Pakistan without the Air Force's tolerance.

Nobody stopped the fighters from walking out of Tora Bora.

Only one of the trails out was bombed. There were two.

The trail crossed a highway. Nobody guarded it.

Dalton Fury said that every Delta Force plan for getting bin Laden at Tora Bora was overruled by the brass.

The Times of London said a British strike force got within 20 minutes of bin Laden, and were pulled off so the Americans could get the kill, but the Americans were so slow he got away.

Your frantic and irrational denial is only proving my point.

 
At 11 February, 2011 12:38, Blogger WhyAskQuestions said...

It would help Brian if he sourced his info, but he's too dumb & stupid to link all his "facts".

 
At 11 February, 2011 13:49, Blogger snug.bug said...

It would help, but I no longer do so because Ian always comes along and buries my link posts under acres of "false" and "nobody cares" posts.

 
At 11 February, 2011 13:58, Blogger Ian G. said...

I don't deny these facts. I deny that there was deliberate action. Show me the evidence that it was deliberate.

Oh right...

It would help, but I no longer do so because Ian always comes along and buries my link posts under acres of "false" and "nobody cares" posts.

Brian has no evidence. He's just a deranged liar who believes 9/11 was an inside job with religious certainty and is trying (poorly) to hide from the evidence against an inside job.

 
At 11 February, 2011 14:21, Blogger Triterope said...

It would help Brian if he sourced his info, but he's too dumb & stupid to link all his "facts".

It doesn't matter if Brian sources his remarks or not. Every one I've ever looked at has turned out to be dubious, dishonest, speculative, or even the complete opposite of what he claims. After awhile you learn not to bother.

 
At 11 February, 2011 15:41, Blogger snug.bug said...

TR, would you care to provide an example to support your claim? Or is sourcing something you don't do because it will only get buried under Ian's dumbspam?

 
At 11 February, 2011 15:44, Blogger snug.bug said...

OK, Ian, so I guess you're saying that the US accidentally allowed al Qaeda to walk and fly out of Afghanistan. So how you can tell accidental from deliberate at 50 paces I sure don't know. Did you Uncle Steve tell you?

Also, I didn't say whether it was accidental or deliberate. I only said they were allowed to escape. They were allowed to escape.

 
At 11 February, 2011 16:06, Blogger Ian G. said...

OK, Ian, so I guess you're saying that the US accidentally allowed al Qaeda to walk and fly out of Afghanistan.

Pretty much. Incompetence was the hallmark of the Bush administration. Plus, this is Afghanistan we're talking about here. It's a little easier to disappear into the rugged wilderness than in, say, Palo Alto.

I don't really expect you to understand all this, Brian. After all, you're only a janitor.

So how you can tell accidental from deliberate at 50 paces I sure don't know.

Good to see you admit that your claims that this was deliberate are total nonsense. You just need it to be deliberate for your 9/11 "truth" delusions to keep going.

Also, I didn't say whether it was accidental or deliberate. I only said they were allowed to escape. They were allowed to escape.

False. You believe it to be deliberate. Otherwise, you wouldn't bring it up in a desperate attempt to make your 9/11 truth beliefs seem plausible.

 
At 11 February, 2011 16:32, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I said the US military allowed al Qaeda to escape. I did not say whether this was deliberate or accidental because I have no way of knowing. You admitted that I was right, that they did allow al Qaeda to escape.

And now you're trying to pin on me the straw man argument that it was deliberate.

At least dishonesty is a step up from argument-by-playing-dumb, your usual mode.

 
At 11 February, 2011 16:35, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, I said the US military allowed al Qaeda to escape. I did not say whether this was deliberate or accidental because I have no way of knowing.

It wasn't deliberate. You believe it was with no evidence, otherwise you wouldn't be babbling about it here. George McClellan allowed Robert E. Lee to escape after Antietam and that was deliberate. How come you don't talk about that?

And now you're trying to pin on me the straw man argument that it was deliberate.

It wasn't. If you learned to Google, you'd know that.

At least dishonesty is a step up from argument-by-playing-dumb, your usual mode.

Brian, you're the one who babbles about attack baboons and thermite elves, not me.

 
At 11 February, 2011 16:45, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, you have no way of knowing whether it was deliberate or not. Neither do I. That's why we need new investigations with subpoena power, under oath, compelling production of documents.

 
At 11 February, 2011 17:20, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, you have no way of knowing whether it was deliberate or not.

I know it wasn't deliberate.

Neither do I.

That's because you're an idiot, Brian.

That's why we need new investigations with subpoena power, under oath, compelling production of documents.

We had the investigations, Brian. Nobody cares whether you accept their findings.

 
At 11 February, 2011 17:25, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, the fact that you claim you know it wasn't deliberate shows you to be incompetent and operating under a crippled epistemology.

There is no way you can know that.

 
At 11 February, 2011 17:30, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, the fact that you claim you know it wasn't deliberate shows you to be incompetent and operating under a crippled epistemology.

Brian, the fact that you think using big words like "epistemology" makes you smart is amusing. Did Willie Rodriguez tell you to use "epistemology".

You make up your facts.

There is no way you can know that.

False.

 
At 11 February, 2011 17:35, Blogger snug.bug said...

OK, so how do you know?


Are the words monosyballic enough for you?

 
At 11 February, 2011 17:39, Blogger Ian G. said...

OK, so how do you know?

The same way I know that there isn't a teapot orbiting the sun between the Earth and Mars.

Are the words monosyballic enough for you?

Squeal squeal squeal!

 
At 11 February, 2011 18:22, Blogger snug.bug said...

So you don't know, you're only saying you do.

 
At 11 February, 2011 18:39, Blogger Ian G. said...

So you don't know, you're only saying you do.

How do you know I don't know?

 
At 12 February, 2011 05:06, Blogger Triterope said...

TR, would you care to provide an example to support your claim?

Oh, gee, uh, how about the "City in the Sky" discussion that's going on right now two threads away, you fucking idiot?

 
At 12 February, 2011 08:42, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I know you don't know because there's no way you can know.

TR, you mean the City in the Sky discussion where GutterBall is irrationally and dishonestly trying to conflate the issues of fire resistance and impact speed specifications?

 
At 12 February, 2011 10:10, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, I know you don't know because there's no way you can know.

False. I know, Brian. Squealing about it doesn't change things.

TR, you mean the City in the Sky discussion where GutterBall is irrationally and dishonestly trying to conflate the issues of fire resistance and impact speed specifications?

Brian, what did I just say about how squealing doesn't change things?

 
At 12 February, 2011 10:45, Blogger snug.bug said...

Oh Ian, you're so butch at the keyboard!

 
At 12 February, 2011 10:53, Blogger Ian G. said...

Oh Ian, you're so butch at the keyboard!

Brian, I'm glad I've kept my anonymity pretty well, as I figured at some point you'd develop a Willie Rodriguez-esque sex obsession with me. I'm just glad I'm on the other side of the country from you.

 
At 12 February, 2011 16:15, Blogger paul w said...

The CIT 'war' is running full tilt at the Aussie 911oz site.

This is the latest posting from the site admin, and more proof that truthers are beyond parody:

"Pentagon "CIT" lobbyists are using classic cointel disruption techniques, and are no longer welcome on this website and forum.

Understand: in science, the truth is not established by consensus or disputes. The truth is made self evident based on evidence and testing. That's the empirical method.

The CIT disruptors are trying to create the impression of a consensus in order to persuade the masses that their arguments are sound.

At the same time they are trying to create the impression that those who dispute their theories are cointel disruptors.

It is impossible to argue with them because they undermine rational argument and will accuse you of what they themselves are doing.

It is indeed a waste of time to engage with them, as wasting time appears to be their primary objective.

Consensus is irrevelant. Even if 90% of readers agree with CIT, that has no bearing on the validity of their theories.

I urge readers to recognise the tactics of these people. Notice the way they use language. Notice how they continually try to inject the idea that there are "two sides" to the argument, without ever actually addressing the other side's points. Notice how they are manipulating you.

This is deliberate deception.

They are lying to you. Sorry if that sounds harsh, but I have put up with this for a long time (perhaps too long).

To the Pentagon CIT cointel disruptors: you can ALL expect to be banned from this forum.

Take your operation elsewhere guys - the 911oz honeymoon is over."


Unfuckingbelievable.

 
At 13 February, 2011 08:17, Blogger Ian G. said...

Like any good religious movement, there are schisms, and then the two sides of the schism declare each other heretics.

It's no different in the religious cult that is 9/11 truth.

Even if 90% of readers agree with CIT, that has no bearing on the validity of their theories.

Keep this in mind the next time Brian babbles about his 1400 architects and engineers.

 
At 13 February, 2011 11:37, Blogger snug.bug said...

Paul w, what exactly is unbelievable about the 911oz statement about CIT? It seems pretty lucid to me.

Ian, if you think "butch" is a compliment you've been out in the boonies too long.

 
At 13 February, 2011 12:39, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, if you think "butch" is a compliment you've been out in the boonies too long.

Brian, please keep your homosexual fantasies to yourself. This is a family blog.

 
At 13 February, 2011 15:26, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, the one with the homosexual fantasies is you.

 
At 13 February, 2011 15:59, Blogger Ian G. said...

Ian, the one with the homosexual fantasies is you.

False.

 
At 13 February, 2011 16:00, Blogger snug.bug said...

You're the one who has over a period of months repeatedly posted your fantasies and speculations about my sex life, Ian.

 
At 13 February, 2011 16:56, Blogger Ian G. said...

You're the one who has over a period of months repeatedly posted your fantasies and speculations about my sex life, Ian.

False. It's not "fantasies and speculations" that you stalk Willie Rodriguez. It's fact.

 
At 13 February, 2011 17:01, Blogger paul w said...

Amazing, eh?

I ask Brian repeatedly to post links to his 'sources', and after much squirming, he replied that he wouldn't because I don't start debating Ian G or Guitar Bill's views.

Now, as if nothing has happened, he expects me to answer his sad need for dialogue.

It was sort of fun to argue with him, but I'm over it. I'm not his shrink.

So, let me make it so simple, that even he understands it:

Brian, fuck off.

 
At 13 February, 2011 17:20, Blogger snug.bug said...

Paul, I simply asked you to clarify what exactly you found "unbefuckinglievable" and "beyond parody" about the statement. Any idiot can point and giggle. I used to find the opening words of the Odyssey hilarious, but I suspect its fame will outlive me.

 
At 13 February, 2011 17:36, Blogger Ian G. said...

Paul, I simply asked you to clarify what exactly you found "unbefuckinglievable" and "beyond parody" about the statement. Any idiot can point and giggle. I used to find the opening words of the Odyssey hilarious, but I suspect its fame will outlive me.

Wanda: To call you stupid would be an insult to stupid people! I've known sheep that could outwit you. I've worn dresses with higher IQs. But you think you're an intellectual, don't you, ape?

Otto: Apes don't read philosophy.

Wanda: Yes they do, Otto. They just don't understand it. Now let me correct you on a couple of things, OK? Aristotle was not Belgian. The central message of Buddhism is not "Every man for himself." And the London Underground is not a political movement.


Brian's constant attempts to make himself look like an intellectual ("I read Les Miserables before I was toilet trained!") remind me of Otto from "A Fish Called Wanda".

 
At 13 February, 2011 17:59, Blogger snug.bug said...

This comment has been removed by the author.

 
At 13 February, 2011 18:24, Blogger snug.bug said...

How is admitting that I made fun of the Odyssey pretending to be an intellectual? We read it in junior high school.

My brother was worse than I. He claimed there was a character in it named "Itchianus".

 
At 13 February, 2011 19:10, Blogger Ian said...

How is admitting that I made fun of the Odyssey pretending to be an intellectual? We read it in junior high school.

Because nobody cares that you read the Odyssey, but you dropped a reference to it in there in order to sound educated. Admittedly, it's not as hilarious as your lies about what you had accomplished before you learned to tie your shoes.

My brother was worse than I. He claimed there was a character in it named "Itchianus".

That's more like it: a sub-Sandler sense of humor is what I'd expect from someone of your intellectual abilities.

 
At 13 February, 2011 20:43, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I keep forgetting to allow for the fact that you don't do metaphor.
(You should find Homer's frequent references to "rosy-fingered dawn" quite hilarious.)

I didn't realize that the Odyssey was so exotic to y'all. I referred to it not from any cultural pretensions but simply to make the point that any idiot can point and snicker at something (like paul w did) and it doesn't mean there's anything wrong with that thing.

 
At 14 February, 2011 06:47, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, I keep forgetting to allow for the fact that you don't do metaphor.

Brian, metaphors are supposed to make sense. You just babble nonsense and then squeal "metaphor!" when someone points out how you're making no sense.

I didn't realize that the Odyssey was so exotic to y'all.

It's not. It's just hilarious to watch a failed janitor and deranged liar make references to world literature in order to make himself appear smart.

I referred to it not from any cultural pretensions but simply to make the point that any idiot can point and snicker at something (like paul w did) and it doesn't mean there's anything wrong with that thing.

You have no point, Brian. You're a failed janitor, liar, sex stalker, and lunatic who has been kicked out of the truth movement.

But I do like you babbling about the Odyssey. It's something new and it's refreshing that you're not babbling about invisible widows, magic thermite elves, or your latin lover Willie who jilted you.

 
At 14 February, 2011 10:49, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, your reading miscomprehension skills are so great you seem to have missed the point that I references the Odyssey not to make myself look smart, but to make myself look stupid.

 
At 14 February, 2011 10:52, Blogger snug.bug said...

By the way, the widows are not at all invisible. They have recently issued a press release calling for the complete disclosure of the testimony of the FBI translator Behrooz Sarshar, who translated a warning in April 2001 to 2 FBI agents of upcoming attacks inside the USA by al Qaeda operatives, who were already in the USA, using airplanes and involving tall buildings.

 
At 14 February, 2011 12:21, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, your reading miscomprehension skills are so great you seem to have missed the point that I references the Odyssey not to make myself look smart, but to make myself look stupid.

Brian, we already know you're stupid. Your posts about the WTC are more than enough to show how dumb you are.

By the way, the widows are not at all invisible. They have recently issued a press release calling for the complete disclosure of the testimony of the FBI translator Behrooz Sarshar, who translated a warning in April 2001 to 2 FBI agents of upcoming attacks inside the USA by al Qaeda operatives, who were already in the USA, using airplanes and involving tall buildings.

Nobody cares.

 
At 14 February, 2011 13:22, Blogger snug.bug said...

I know nobody cares. The man had warnings of the upcoming attacks five months before they happened, the FBI agents wrote a memo entitled "Kamikaze Pilots" for their supervisor--and then (according to Sibel Edmonds) when they went back to the supervisor to find out what he did with the memo he told them they'd never gotten the warnings and none of that ever happened.

Mr. Sarshar took his story to the 9/11 Commission and to staff members of Patrick Leahy and a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee, and nobody would toucn it.

How can you possibly not care about that?

 
At 14 February, 2011 14:38, Blogger Ian said...

Wait, Brian, so now you think al Qaeda did it and incompetence in the Federal Government was the reason we failed to stop it? Well, you can sign me up for joining your government accountability movement.

Just promise me you'll stop babbling about thermite and "essentially in free-fall".

 
At 14 February, 2011 16:16, Blogger Triterope said...

Brian's constant attempts to make himself look like an intellectual ("I read Les Miserables before I was toilet trained!") remind me of Otto from "A Fish Called Wanda".

YES. That's exactly what he is.

 
At 14 February, 2011 18:14, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, your consistent muddling in the fallacy of the appeal to consequence prevents you from examining the facts for what they are.

 
At 14 February, 2011 20:07, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, your consistent muddling in the fallacy of the appeal to consequence prevents you from examining the facts for what they are.

As usual, Brian wants it both ways. Al Qaeda did it when it's convenient, and the Bush administration also did it when it's convenient.

The fact that he's a failed janitor who babbles on an obscure blog makes it funny. It would be scary if he mattered to anyone.

 
At 14 February, 2011 21:04, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian I never said al Qaeda did or didn't do it or that the Bush administration did or didn't do it.

I don't know who did it. But I can spot a phony investigation when I see one and we need new ones.

A good place to start would be the redacted pages in the Joint House/Senate investigation.

 
At 14 February, 2011 22:45, Blogger Ian said...

Ian I never said al Qaeda did or didn't do it or that the Bush administration did or didn't do it.

False. You've said both. Mostly, however, you blame the Bush administration.

I don't know who did it.

That's because you're an idiot and insane. I do know who did it.

But I can spot a phony investigation when I see one and we need new ones.

Brian, you're a failed janitor who doesn't know anything. The idea that you could spot a phony investigation is hilarious.

A good place to start would be the redacted pages in the Joint House/Senate investigation.

And you'll never see them! Go cry to Laurie Van Auken about it. HA HA HA HA HA!!!!

 
At 15 February, 2011 00:24, Blogger snug.bug said...

See what I mean?

Hey Ian, did you hear about Chase Britton, who was born without a cerebellum?

 
At 15 February, 2011 07:05, Blogger Ian said...

See what I mean?

Brian, you don't mean anything. You're a liar and failed janitor who has been thrown out of the truth movement. Everyone just laughs at you.

 
At 15 February, 2011 09:41, Blogger snug.bug said...

You keep saying that, but you only cite fringey conspiracy sites for your sources.

 
At 15 February, 2011 09:46, Blogger Ian said...

You keep saying that, but you only cite fringey conspiracy sites for your sources.

That's because you were once part of that fringe conspiracy theory and the people in that cult threw you out.

If you were a member of the Nation of Islam and they said you were thrown out for sex stalking members, I would take their word for it. It doesn't matter that the NOI or the truth movement are crackpot fringe cults.

 
At 15 February, 2011 23:04, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I never subscribed to any fringe conspiracy theory.

 
At 16 February, 2011 01:01, Blogger snug.bug said...

And Ian, I wouldn't even have to be a truther to call you out for your stupid lies. Your colleagues here at SLC would too, if they had any integrity.

 
At 16 February, 2011 10:14, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, I never subscribed to any fringe conspiracy theory.

So you're not a truther? Than what's with the endless babbling about magic thermite elves? Are you just trying to make yourself look insane?

And Ian, I wouldn't even have to be a truther to call you out for your stupid lies. Your colleagues here at SLC would too, if they had any integrity.

Can you name some of these "lies"?

 
At 16 February, 2011 13:33, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, all of the babbling about magic thermite elves has been by you.

Generally your claims "false" and "nobody cares" are lies. "There are no widows" is another lie. Most of your statements about me are lies.

 
At 16 February, 2011 14:56, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, all of the babbling about magic thermite elves has been by you.

Um, no. I don't believe the WTC towers were brought down by thermite. You do. And yet when asked to provide evidence of this belief, you provide nothing. Thus, it was magic thermite elves that did it, I suppose.

Generally your claims "false" and "nobody cares" are lies.

When you post false stuff, I tell it like it is. Also, nobody cares about 9/11 truth. Just look at how well "truther" candidates poll in elections.

"There are no widows" is another lie.

I never said there are no widows. My grandmother, for instance, is a widow.

Most of your statements about me are lies.

False.

 
At 16 February, 2011 18:28, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, where did I say the towers were brought down by thermite? You guys here share one very strong characteristic with the dumbass wing of the truth movement--you think it's all about conspiracy theories. It's not. It's about facts--which ones can be determined reliably, and which ones can not.

09 January, 15:00 you said I babble "about imaginary widows and thermite".

 
At 16 February, 2011 19:24, Blogger snug.bug said...

13 January, 2011 09:54, You said I babble 'about phony "widows" all day.'

 
At 16 February, 2011 21:17, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, where did I say the towers were brought down by thermite?

Everywhere. Jesus, Brian, if you don't want us thinking you believe insane things, maybe you should stop babbling about said insane things?

You guys here share one very strong characteristic with the dumbass wing of the truth movement--you think it's all about conspiracy theories. It's not. It's about facts--which ones can be determined reliably, and which ones can not.

Well, for you it's all about conspiracy theories. I understand, given that you're a failed janitor with no real ability to think critically.

09 January, 15:00 you said I babble "about imaginary widows and thermite".

You do.

13 January, 2011 09:54, You said I babble 'about phony "widows" all day.'

That and your sexual obsession with Willie Rodriguez.

 
At 17 February, 2011 01:00, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I never said the towers were brought down by thermite. You are not competent to read.

 
At 17 February, 2011 04:38, Blogger Triterope said...

Oh, fuck you, Brian. You've inundated this place with videos of thermite demonstrations, lectures about elevator shaft access, arguments that it has the necessary properties, exhortations that anyone could have sprayed it a little at a time like Andy Dufresne escaping from Shawshank Prison, even calling such speculation "facts." Could you just admit that's what you're arguing? Are you insa-- oh, I forgot, you are.

 
At 17 February, 2011 07:36, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, I never said the towers were brought down by thermite. You are not competent to read.

False.

 
At 17 February, 2011 09:48, Blogger snug.bug said...

TR, what I argue is truth, not theories.

When some idiot claims that explosive charges could not be planted without somebody noticing, I point out the FACT that the core columns were accessible from the elevator shafts, that they were hollow for most of their length, that Jonathan Cole has shown that thermite can cut vertical surfaces, that a nine-month elevator renovations project got building tenants used to people roaming around in the elevator shafts, that radio-controlled detonators does away with the need for det cord, and that use of insensitive radio receivers eliminates the RF pollution problem.

No theory involved there at all. All fact, debunking the stoooopid theory that planting charges in the towers was impossible. It was possible. That is not a theory.

 
At 17 February, 2011 10:42, Blogger Ian said...

TR, what I argue is truth, not theories.

No, what you argue is delusional babble.

When some idiot claims that explosive charges could not be planted without somebody noticing, I point out the FACT that the core columns were accessible from the elevator shafts, that they were hollow for most of their length, that Jonathan Cole has shown that thermite can cut vertical surfaces, that a nine-month elevator renovations project got building tenants used to people roaming around in the elevator shafts, that radio-controlled detonators does away with the need for det cord, and that use of insensitive radio receivers eliminates the RF pollution problem.

See what I mean?

No theory involved there at all. All fact, debunking the stoooopid theory that planting charges in the towers was impossible. It was possible. That is not a theory.

It was possible that modified attack baboons planted micro-nukes. That is not a theory either.

 
At 17 February, 2011 11:32, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, you're right. Modified attack baboons is not a theory but only a fantasy. Theories require evidence, and you have none.

 
At 17 February, 2011 13:32, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, you're right. Modified attack baboons is not a theory but only a fantasy.

Right.

Theories require evidence, and you have none.

Yup, just like you have no evidence of thermite. What did I say above about delusional babble?

 
At 17 February, 2011 15:29, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, there is much evidence of thermite. The molten steel at Ground Zero is otherwise unexplained. There is also the matter of the exothermic red-gray chips found in the dust, and the "evaporated" steel in the FEMA Appendix C report.

You guys maintain your illusions by remaining ignorant and denying reality.

 
At 17 February, 2011 18:02, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, there is much evidence of thermite.

False.

The molten steel at Ground Zero is otherwise unexplained. There is also the matter of the exothermic red-gray chips found in the dust, and the "evaporated" steel in the FEMA Appendix C report.

See what I mean? Seriously, Brian, this is the best that you can do? You're really pathetically desperate to believe in an inside job.

You guys maintain your illusions by remaining ignorant and denying reality.

Squeal squeal squeal!

 
At 17 February, 2011 19:46, Blogger Triterope said...

It was possible. That is not a theory.

** facepalm **

 
At 17 February, 2011 21:11, Blogger snug.bug said...

TR, planting charges in the towers was possible. Each tower had 7.5 miles of elevator shafts, a mile and a half of drop ceiling adjacent to perimeter columns, and 3/4 of a mile of drop ceiling adjacent to the core area. Your belief that planting charges was not possible is irrational.

 
At 18 February, 2011 07:47, Blogger Ian said...

TR, planting charges in the towers was possible.

Yes, and modified attack baboons placing micro-nukes in the towers was possible.

Each tower had 7.5 miles of elevator shafts, a mile and a half of drop ceiling adjacent to perimeter columns, and 3/4 of a mile of drop ceiling adjacent to the core area.

Exactly. These are perfect places for attack baboons to hide.

Your belief that planting charges was not possible is irrational.

Um, I know it might be difficult for someone of your intellect to make the distinction, but there is a difference between "could have happened" and "did happen".

Either way, you have not presented any evidence against the attack baboons and micro-nukes theory.

 
At 18 February, 2011 16:11, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I very well know the difference between "could have happened" and "did happen".

You clearly do not know that difference, because when some idiot on this blog says "could not have happened" and I respond with evidence supporting "could have happened" you accuse me of asserting "did happen".

I don't need to provide any evidence countering attack baboons and micro-nukes, because you have provided no evidence supporting them.

 
At 20 February, 2011 15:22, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, I very well know the difference between "could have happened" and "did happen".

False.

I don't need to provide any evidence countering attack baboons and micro-nukes, because you have provided no evidence supporting them.

Right, and I don't need to provide any evidence countering controlled demolition because you have provided no evidence supporting it.

 
At 21 February, 2011 12:24, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, that's fine. You need not provide any evidence disproving controlled demolition. I'm not claiming it happened. I'm claiming that the official investigations have been negligent, dishonest, incomplete, and unbelievable and we thus need new ones.

 
At 21 February, 2011 19:45, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, that's fine. You need not provide any evidence disproving controlled demolition.

Right, the burden of proof is on those making the claim.

I'm not claiming it happened.

Uh, so you babble about thermite to make yourself look like an illiterate lunatic?

I'm claiming that the official investigations have been negligent, dishonest, incomplete, and unbelievable and we thus need new ones.

And I'm claiming that you're a liar, lunatic, and failed janitor and nobody cares what you think of the official investigations. I also don't need to present any evidence. Your babbling and squealing at this blog will suffice.

 
At 22 February, 2011 00:17, Blogger snug.bug said...

Ian, I need only prove that the NIST investigation was dishonest, incomplete, and unbelievable.

I have many times explained why I talk about thermite: because thermite is not noisy like explosives, because only thermite can explain the molten steel at ground Zero, because only thermite can explain the evaporated steel at Ground Zero, and because claims that it could not have brought the towers down are not true.

You provide no evidence that I am a liar, a lunatic, or a failed janitor (whatever that is).

 
At 22 February, 2011 07:14, Blogger Ian said...

Ian, I need only prove that the NIST investigation was dishonest, incomplete, and unbelievable.

Which you haven't done in the slightest.

I have many times explained why I talk about thermite: because thermite is not noisy like explosives, because only thermite can explain the molten steel at ground Zero, because only thermite can explain the evaporated steel at Ground Zero, and because claims that it could not have brought the towers down are not true.

Right, you talk about thermite because you are insane and think it has magical properties.

You provide no evidence that I am a liar, a lunatic, or a failed janitor (whatever that is).

Well, you're a liar because you say that the widows have questions. You're a lunatic because you stalk Willie Rodriguez. You're a failed janitor because you used to be a janitor but lost your job and are now unemployed living with your parents.

Simple, really.

 
At 17 March, 2011 15:47, Blogger matu said...

"My main focus relative to 9/11 had been on the destruction of the three World Trade Center skyscrapers. I had not been able to spend much time on the Pentagon issue..."

"It took him nearly two years to figure out that they were a bunch of idiots?..."


This shows exactly what kind of person this blogger is. A narrow minded, probably will delete this comment also.

 

Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home