Yes, I'm Amazed Too
Quote of the week, concerning Gage's attendance at the Irish kook festival we spotlighted a few days ago:
Has Gage been doing these kind of events before? He should never have done this. I'm actually amazed that he buys into conspiracy theories, I thought he was a scientist.
(Bolding added for emphasis)
In answer to the question, he appeared at that financial scam conference last year.
Update: James reminded me that Gage spoke at the "Conscious Life Expo" a few months ago. Here's their list of DVDs on "Conspiracy":
Gage was on the 9-11 Panel with such luminaries as Michelle Phillips of the Mamas and the Papas, and John Heard, most noted as the dad in Home Alone.
Labels: Dumb Quotes, Richard Gage
posted by Pat @ 11:22 PM
46 comments
46 Comments:
I had my name removed from the AE911truth petition. I refuse to support any organization that discredits us by having it's leader appear at a conspiracy promotion event.
Beyond parody
They just can't face reality, can they? They can't face the reality that 9-11 Truth is just as worthless as all that "pseudoscience" they're embarrassed to be associated with.
I also liked this exchange:
It's almost like Stephen Jones and Richard Gage are coordinating a "Discredit the truth movement world tour"
And let's not forget Luke (Rudkowski).
Don't get me started. I could write a book. Alex Jones. Infiltrator Ryan Rodriguez.
Those people are discrediting the Truth movement? Those people ARE the Truth movement! Other than Gage, Stephen Jones, Alex Jones, and WAC, who else is there?
LOL! Man these people think anyone is a scientist huh?
Don't forget Gage spoke at the Conscious Life Expo too. Really scientific.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Next Skeptical Inquirer Cover
The Committee for Skeptical Inquiry next issue will deal with truthers.
"...I think I'll stick to diplomacy, propaganda, and civil confrontation, thank you. It seems to have worked in isolating Barrett and Ranke." -- Brian "goat fucker" Good
Propaganda and women's underwear, what a combination.
the first investigative drama to challenge the official version of 9/11.
LOL! Silly truthers.
While I'm not as easily amazed as Pat Curley, I do find it amazing that 48% of New Yorkers support a new investigation of WTC7. That's more than the percentage who don't support it. What's the spin on that, Pat?
Don't forget the hat tip, you fat balding gray bitch.
48% of New Yorkers support a new investigation of WTC7.
And up to 70% think astrology works, and that light in the sky are little gray aliens, and that a god created the universe. Fortunately, reality is not driven by popular vote.
"48% of New Yorkers support a new investigation of WTC7"
Source?
"Source?"
-J. Repulsive
Well, you'll never find sources if you're fucking around on this site instead of doing some proper research, sonny. Step away from SLC, and watch the facts pour in.
And do like truthers and wave at them as they pass you by.
"Well, you'll never find sources if you're fucking around on this site instead of doing some proper research, sonny. Step away from SLC, and watch the facts pour in."
I take it then you pulled that number out of your ass?
You made the claim, prove it by providing your source to allow it to be evaluated. You truly don't expect people to assume something is a fact simply because you claimed it.
I mean, you do the reseaarch yourself to double check claims made by both "truthers" and rational people, don't you? You wouldn't accept something without proof, right?
So share that proof with us.
No, it its from a new poll they commissioned. All they did is prove that when people have no idea what you are talking about, they tend to just agree with you to make you go away.
Cosmos, I keep hoping that eventually you get your new investigation into WTC-7. The comedic potential will be off the charts.
"No, it its from a new poll they commissioned. All they did is prove that when people have no idea what you are talking about, they tend to just agree with you to make you go away."
Thank you, that is a start.
I wonder why PC found that so hard to do that he had to attack me rather than answer the question?
Of course, that is not enough information, do you know who commissioned it, what the questions actually were, what method was used for canvassing and what the sample demographics were? All of that information, and likely more, is needed to evaluate if the poll is actually reliable.
Actually, a good link to the poll itself is best.
I'm reminded of all the on-line polls Ron Paul won leading up to the election in 2008.
Coawardly, don't you know anything about COLLATERAL DAMAGE? I bet you don't know shit about it do you?!
WTC7 = Collateral damage! It's not a "secret" you morons been wanting.
And nowhere will you find how this poll was conducted. Who asked the questions, were they impartial or was it truthers asking people on the street? How was the question phased? Who verified there numbers? They don't show their methodology.
The poll shows that 1 in 3 New Yorkers were unaware of Building 7′s collapse. Well people who are "Unaware" are not the people you want deciding to spend more tax money on an issue where the "Aware" people have already determined what happened.
Like I said when I tell people about WTC7 they become Aware that fire and structural damage caused the collapse, Truthers love for people to be uneducated about the building because ignorance makes for better truthers.
If I take a poll of evolution Vs creationism at a church, you can bet how it will pan out.
"Coawardly, don't you know anything about COLLATERAL DAMAGE? I bet you don't know shit about it do you?!"
-pseudoskeptic mouthbreather
That's a great explanation of why there was no resistance at all over a significant period of the collapse. J. Riboredom agrees completely, I'm sure.
"significant period of the collapse"
I bet you think virgins have spent a signification amount of time in their life having sex.
1/8 is significant?
Actually if we take in all the evidence there was significant resistance all afternoon; since the signs of collapse were first reported.
'No, it its from a new poll they commissioned'.
And as we all know, polls can be framed in specific ways by the questions asked. If you ask 'Do you think there should be an investigation into the collapse of WTC7?' the average John or Jane Doe will probably say 'Yeah, I suppose there should be, really'.
But if you ask them 'Do you think WTC7 - and for that matter WTC1 and WTC2 - were destroyed by controlled demolitions?', you'd probably get a different answer.
Incidentally, is Pat Cowardly (AKA Cosmos) still pretending to be a bereaved relative of a 9/11 victim? Or has that sick little piece of shit given up on that particular lie?
"Cosmos, I keep hoping that eventually you get your new investigation into WTC-7. The comedic potential will be off the charts." Pat the Fatherless Coward
Cosmos, huh? Shoddy research per usual, you obese fool. YaknowImean...
"1/8 is significant?"
-Master of dreck
So now the collapse took 18 seconds? Where does the NIST report say that, son?
Given my interactions with canvassing truthers in the city, the poll probably had two questions:
"Did you know that WTC 7 collapsed on 9/11?"
followed by
"Do you think the collapse of WTC 7 should be investigated?"
That probably is enough to get the results that the truthers wanted.
Of course, there was another poll taken in the fall of 2008 in which truther extraordinaire, Cynthia McKinney, was on the ballot. Strangely, the truther hotbed of NYC cast over 2.35 million votes, and yet a whopping .9% of those votes went for candidates other than Obama or McCain. Given that people like Bob Barr, Ralph Nader, Michael Badnarik and others also ran for President, I'd estimate McKinney's share of the vote to be easily less than 10,000, or about what the Mets get in attendance for a Tuesday night game in April against Pittsburgh that's had a 3-hour rain delay.
So still no source for your claim, PC?
Nothing from you but feeble attempts to guess my position or provoke me into an argument that has nothing to do with my simple question.
You made a specific claim. I only asked you to provide the source for the claim. You immediatly attacked me.
The only logical conclusion is that either you know any serious look at your source will expose it as weak at best, or there is no actual source for the claim.
It would be easy enough to prove that wrong, provide the source.
I'm waiting.
Is it this poll they're talking about?
http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=211371
The lesson here is that people are "sheeple" unless they agree with you. I can cite polls about Sarah Palin's popularity but they don't mean that we should vote for her.
So now the collapse took 18 seconds? Where does the NIST report say that, son?
Well unlike an idiot like you we don't need NIST to prove what we say. Anyone who can see a video of the ENTIRE collapse of WTC7 and can count (or if you are a truther have someone count for you) will clearly see from the first sign of the collapse of the East penthouse to the time of collapse completion it is 16 to 18 second. Sorry, That is a fact.
If you are a gullible bumpkin you would believe the conspiracy theorist 6.5 seconds which only shows the falling of the north face after much of the internal structure has already fallen inward.
The raw data is here. The data is not favorable to the Truth movement. It indicates that most people know about WTC7, believe that it collpased from fire, and do not believe a new investigation is necessary.
"Of those aware of Building 7’s collapse, 24 percent believe it was a controlled demolition that brought the building down, 23 percent are unsure, and 49 percent believe it was caused by fires;"
So its' only 24% of the 1 in 3 who knew about building 7. That is a very small number. And just because they say it was a controlled demolition does not mean a controlled demolition as an act of terror, they could mistakenly think a controlled demolition as part of the clean up.
At this point I like to point out pols show 18% of Americans think the sun revolves around the earth. So do we do an investigation of Heliocentrism.
And for you Pat Cowardly "Heliocentrism" means a sun centred universe. Figured YOU would not be smart enough to know that. Oh, and you do know the earth revolves around the sun, RIght?
Well unlike an idiot like you we don't need NIST to prove what we say...
Indeed....sadly Kosmo thinks that since he and every other truther simply regurgitates what they read online that everyone should do so. Fact is, not only can we directly observe it, but the seismic record shows that it was around that, and is devoid of any signs of controlled demolition.
http://www.ldeo.columbia.edu/LCSN/Eq/20010911_wtc.html
If thermite was used to sever columns, why would you expect a seismograph to register it?
That's a great explanation of why there was no resistance......
-----------
You truely are a mindless fool of the Borg collective. There was resistance. 2.5 seconds of what you believe doesn't prove shit pal.
This comment has been removed by the author.
If thermite was used to sever columns, why would you expect a seismograph to register it?
-----------
I know answering a question with a question seems inappropriate, but I'll consider that in this matter
Brian, how can thermite "sever" columms when it can't even sever (nor melt) a thin steel wire that's used in sparklers on the 4th of July?
Answer that one you prick!
If thermite was used to sever columns, why would you expect a seismograph to register it?
Death ray beams from space would have severed the columns without it registering on a seismograph either, Brian.
As would modified attack baboons.
WAQo, for demonstration of the power of thermite, see this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g
WAQo, for demonstration of the power of thermite, see this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5d5iIoCiI8g
Nobody cares.
For a demonstration of the power of death ray beams from space, watch "Star Wars".
WAQo, for demonstration of the power of thermite, see this video...
Brian, still doesn't account why that little steel wire didn't melt nor did it sever the wire just like you imagined.
Tell you what, if you can prove that thermite can melt steel or sever it then by all means produce a video of yourself doing just that. I on the other hand will be having a thermite blast on the 4th of July with my thermite sparklers and looking at how that little piece of wire didn't melt nor sever then I'll pause for a minute and think how incredibly dumb your theories about thermite really are.
Also Brian, answer my fucking question you limp dick:
How can thermite "sever" columms when it can't even sever (nor melt) a thin steel wire that's used in sparklers on the 4th of July?
Post a Comment
<< Home