Richard Gage: Hard at Work, or Hardly Working?
You may recall that Box Boy Gage claims on the IRS forms for his group that he works 80 hours a week. Sunup to Sundown, all 7 days in other words. But I guess Gage's work is like an iceberg, where 90% of it is hidden. Check out his upcoming events calendar.
Three of the "upcoming" events have already passed; the only real future event is in DC in September, and even that one is marked "tentative". I assume that's the Pentagon kookery event we talked about a couple weeks ago. BTW, that event is now a sell-out. And even there, Gage is only scheduled for 30 minutes.
posted by Pat @ 10:32 AM
67 comments
67 Comments:
Obviously, it all depends on how Box Boy defines the word "work."
"...When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean -- neither more nor less." -- Humpty Dumpty
Given Humpty's definition, I'll leave it to the reader to define Box Boy's definition of "work." LOL
It looks like conspiratoids have moved on. Today I saw some idiot claiming the real reason for bombing Syria was so the west could construct pipelines in the Middle East. I have real reservations about the US getting involved in Syria, but anyone who claims it's about "pipelines" is simply too afraid or too stupid to be able to discuss the real reasons.
This comment has been removed by the author.
AE911truth first opened their website about 3.5 weeks AFTER Dr. Wood submitted her Request for Corrections (RFC) to NIST. She was the first to submit an RFC that blew the whistle on the contractors for the NIST report. Can you say “damage control”? Then she filed a Federal qui tam case that could have blown this whole case wide open, including putting people under oath – if there were enough supporters. The case even got as far as the Supreme Court. Guess what? It became a policy in AE911Truth to ban those who discussed the work of Dr. Wood in an honest manor.* If Richard Gage, founder & CEO of AE911truth, bought Dr. Wood’s book in the spring of 2011 and read it, he can no longer use “plausible deniability” as a defense. Mr. Gage is knowingly leading people away from the truth about 9/11 and using AE911Truth funds to accomplish this task. So leading people away from the truth must be the mission of AE911Truth. How else could he justify using AE911Truth funds to buy this book? Who funds AE911Truth? Donations through the donation drives on his site have dried up. However, donating creates a psychological hold on the donor and they are less likely to leave the organization or question Mr. Gage. Dr. Wood promotes independent thinking. Perhaps this is why she does not ask for donations on her website or conduct membership drives for a “truth club” to keep everyone in lockstep, where members are issued a list of talking points to focus on so that they don’t go looking for the truth. Dr. Wood is just one person. Richard Gage brags about having a large membership in lockstep with him. So why is he so concerned about just ONE person and radiates such anger at Dr. Wood? The truth is powerful and it emerges through independent thought.
You want a new investigation? You already have one. It's contained in a book called "WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?" Why is AE911Truth suppressing it? AE911Truth cannot lobby Congress. They are a 501( c )3 and are prohibited from lobbying Congress. Why didn’t AE911Truth submit their so-called “thermite evidence” to NIST? – Oh, that’s right. It’s a federal crime to defraud the government. Why hasn’t AE911Truth filed a Federal qui tam case? Because they haven’t blown the whistle on anything and they have no evidence and it is past the statute of limitation. So, why didn’t they support Dr. Wood's Federal qui tam case that was filed instead of banning members who mentioned it? ** -- I guess they really didn’t want such a case to go forward. So they want “respect and compassion for all people” except for those named “Dr. Judy Wood.”
Hey Brian, did you read Emmanuel Goldstein's comment? I can find no fault with it. Judy Wood is obviously a courageous investigator looking for the truth, while Richard Gage is a fraud and con artist swindling people.
Also, it's "honest manner", EG, unless you're talking about a country estate where a lord lives.
Thank you for correcting the manner in which I wrote. I always appreciate and encourage corrective criticism.
The Gate Keepers by Charlie Pound
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6s1f1i_TpEs
Ian, perhaps if you would read some of Dr. Wood's work and if you knew the history
and you had read just a leetle bit more critcially you would have some problems with Mr. Goldstein's comment.
Emmanuel Goldstein, eh? Sounds like Israel's fingerprints are all over 9/11.
Sincerely, Joshua Blakeney
Ian, perhaps if you would read some of Dr. Wood's work and if you knew the history and you had read just a leetle bit more critcially you would have some problems with Mr. Goldstein's comment.
Poor Brian. He's humiliated because everyone knows that Judy Wood is a courageous researcher and truth-teller, much like Bill Deagle, while Richard Gage is a liar and con artist.
Brian, being too mentally incompetent to mop floors (which is why he is unemployed and lives with his parents), can't see through Gage's confidence scheme like everyone else does.
What's even funnier is that Gage banned Brian from AE911truth for being a liar and sex stalker. When an obvious con artist doesn't want Brian part of the movement, what chance does Brian have with such serious researchers like Bill Deagle, Judy Wood, or Jim Fetzer?
Also, Brian, can you do us a favor and change your avatar photo? We get it: you're obsessed with Willie Rodriguez and want to show us your jerk-off photos of him.
We'd much prefer a genuine photo of yourself, with your hideous haircut visible for all of us to ridicule.
Emmanuel Goldstein = 1984
Bill Deagle + Jim Fetzer = cover-up
The number of people who believe that a PC and an Internet connection makes them a qualified forensic scientist is disturbing...
The empirical EVIDENCE tells us that the majority of the buildings turned into dust in mid air. Therefore, something that can do this (turn it into dust in mid air) must exist. That is the proof that it exists. It happened. You don't need the serial numbers for the gizmo to know what happened. When "white man" first arrived on the American continent with firearms, indigenous people did not need to know the serial numbers of their weapons to know what they can do. They didn't need to have seen such weapons in order to know that there exists a weapon that can fire a piece of metal fast enough to kill their brother. Likewise, by the end of the day on August 6, 1945, the people living near Hiroshima, Japan, did not need to understand how a nuclear bomb works in order to know that there exists a technology that can produce enormous amounts of heat or to know that there exists a super-duper Kinetic Energy Weapon (KEW) that is capable of destroying an entire city.
As Dr. Wood puts-forth in WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO?, there is no evidence for the use of any kinetic device including super duper thermite or super duper micro mini nukes for these reasons. 1.) No seismic evidence. 2.) No sound evidence. 3.) No heat evidence. [i.e.unburnt paper] 4.) No blast evidence [i.e. the foundation "bathtub" remained intact and did not flood.]
What Dr. Wood learned from preparing her textbook was that a more accurate term for the “dustification” of two quarter mile high skyscrapers with a combined weight of more than one million tons is “magnetic-electrogravitic-nuclear reactions”. The word “nuclear” is included because the molecular disassociation occurs at a nuclear level and should not to be confused with a conventional nuclear reaction. This term can be found in Chapter 17 The Tesla-Hutchison Effect, Section I. Apparent Transmutation, page 365, 3rd line from the top.
The thermite or micro-nuke bandwagon is an excellent demonstration of just how easy it is to herd public opinion. Magicians don't need to lie; they just need to charm the audience into making wrong assumptions and the audience will generate the lies themselves. The lies don't need to last forever. They only need to last until it is too late to undo things and see more clearly. The simple fact, validated by the almost complete lack of commensurate debris on the ground at the World Trade Center complex, indicates that the buildings went up, they did not come down. By reading WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? you will discover the truth on your own as I have done. But before reading her book, I suggest reading Andrew Johnson's book first.
9/11Finding the Truth
A Compilation of Articles by Andrew Johnson Focused around the research and evidence compiled by Dr. Judy Wood
Chapter 31. AE911 “Truth” and Other Sites Again Censor The Evidence 04 Apr 2010
AE911 – Silently Deletes A Petition Signer (pages 297 to 300)
http://www.checktheevidence.com/pdf/9-11%20-%20Finding%20the%20Truth.pdf
In Appendix C, page 238, section C, (Refined searches) of Michael Armenia’s book, "Nanomanagement:The Disintegration of a Non-Profit Corporation", the name “Judy Wood” is a search term used to disqualify a person’s affiliation with AE911Truth.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/124871928/Nanomanagement-The-Disintegration-of-a-Non-Profit-Corporation
Ian, where did you get the idea that Mr. Gage banned me from AE911Truth? We have repeatedly discussed your lying claims that I am a liar and a sex-stalker. Your remarks, for which you provide no proof, are libelous. Please provide me with your real name and the name of your legal counsel.
Mr. Goldstein, your claim that "The empirical EVIDENCE tells us that the majority of the buildings turned into dust in mid air" is absurd. The ground is littered with steel wheatchex. The concrete (180,000 tons of it) turned to dust, and this mystery has never been addressed by NIST. Look at the photos. There's steel all over the place.
Can you name any credible person who will validate your claim that the steel we see on the ground is not sufficient to account for all the structural steel in the building?
Can you name any credible person who takes the Hutchison Effect seriously?
Directed Energy Weapons are real--there was just a scientific conference on them a couple of weeks ago in Monterey.
So I'm fine with Dr. Wood speculating that they were employed in bringing the towers down. But if she claims that they completely dustified the towers, she's amping up the power requirements to unrealistic levels and she's denying the photo evidence.
And when she unnecessarily insists on linking her speculations to Free Energy and the Hutchison Effect she pretty much ensures that serious people aren't going to bother with her.
Ian, where did you get the idea that Mr. Gage banned me from AE911Truth? We have repeatedly discussed your lying claims that I am a liar and a sex-stalker. Your remarks, for which you provide no proof, are libelous. Please provide me with your real name and the name of your legal counsel.
Typical bushcist. Brian tries to squelch my free speech when I tell uncomfortable truths about him.
Anyway, I will provide you with my real name and the name of my legal counsel when you agree to a debate with Willie Rodriguez at this blog.
Also, Brian, you miss all the evidence that death ray beams from space were responsible for the destruction of the towers. The 7 essential mysteries all strongly suggest that direct energy weapons destroyed the towers.
Tony Stark is a well-known weapons researcher who gave up his lucrative career in such to become a peace campaigner, and he supports Judy Wood's assertions.
I already debated Willie at this blog. I proved that his hero story is a lie; he ran away squealing and crying.
Cease and desist your libels, Lyin Ian.
See what I mean about you being a pathetic liar, Brian? You ran away squealing and crying from a debate challenge from Rodriguez. Claiming you debated him is as hilarious as your ridiculous claim that you weren't banned from wikipedia for vandalism, or that you didn't go looking for the architectural credentials of a comic book character.
Anyway, I see you won't even address the fact that the 7 essential mysteries clearly back up Dr. Wood's theories. You'd know this if you weren't a pathetic simpleton who was conned by a fraud like Richard Gage.
Also,
"Lyin Ian."
Your claims that I am a liar are libelous. Please provide me with the contact information for your legal counsel.
Oh right, this is Brian Good we're talking about. He can't afford legal counsel. He can't even afford a decent haircut!
Ian, I debated Willie at this blog. I proved that his hero story is a lie; he ran away squealing and crying.
He is not here. He is not anywhere. According to Der Spiegel, he lives in a basement apartment in New Jersey with a dog named Elvis.
Why shouldn't I go looking for the credentials of an internet poster who made the lying claim that he was an architect? I showed he was lying. He's not here either. He ran away--he and his anonymous internet persona.
7 essential mysteries may be consistent with Dr. Wood's theories, but they hardly back it up.
You're a liar, Ian. That's my opinion, and it's my right to express it.
Your persistent campaign to post libelous claims about me goes far beyond expressing opinions. Please provide me with your real name and the name of your legal counsel.
Cease and desist your libels, Lyin Ian.
Dearest snug bug AKA Brian Good,
The number of people who believe that a PC and an Internet connection makes them a qualified forensic scientist is disturbing...
WAKE UP THIS IS YOUR ALARM !
music, lyrics, and vocals by Charlie Pound © 2012
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2dI-yRkFXY
Verse 1:
Where did the towers go? Away with the breeze that blows.
And how much steel did they find? Could it be shipped in time?
I don’t know I haven’t seen the receipt, but it doesn’t make sense to me!
All those cars in a line, door handles and engines gone.
I’d tell you if I could, but you need to ask Judy Wood.
Before you accuse someone, you better make damn sure you know what was done!
Chorus:
Wake up! this is your alarm!
Wake up!
Verse 2:
So while you're sitting on the fence, why don’t you check the evidence?
I’ll tell you something that you’ll learn, World Trade Center paper doesn’t burn.
And how could those buildings fall, with a seismic impact so small?
I know that something’s wrong, eight seconds the north tower's gone.
I’d tell you if I could, but you need to ask Judy Wood.
Before you accuse someone you better make sure you know how it was done!
Chorus:
Wake up! this is your alarm!
Wake up!
Middle eight:
You know it was 2001,
here we are and we're still arguing!
Chorus:
Wake up! this is your alarm!
Wake up! this is your alarm!
Wake up!
Wake up!
Wake up!
“The towers didn’t burn up, nor did they slam to the ground. They turned into dust in mid air.”
BTW... Nowhere in WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? does Dr. Wood make any claim about death rays from space. This is disinformation. I would know this because I read her book. The truth is known, but it appears that many people really don’t want to know the truth. They’d rather argue about opinions about rumors while trying to convince themselves that “nobody knows what happened & we’ll never know.” The facts about what happened have been available for many years. Dr. Wood’s book has nicely gathered up an enormous amount of evidence. She leads the reader through the evidence while asking them questions to help them see it for themselves. Any honest person who reads that book will know what happened by the time they finish it. No exceptions. So why aren’t people reading her book? Because they prefer to create doubt & suspicion & believe false propaganda & argue about opinions of rumors of hearsay...around & around in circles on forums...instead of simply looking at the facts, just like those running the cover-up have taught them to do. The question is, will people just continue to marginalize those presenting the truth or will they realized they’ve been duped for 12 years & don’t want to continue being duped by those running the cover-up? Dr. Wood has mostly stood alone through all of this. Why has there been such a far reaching campaign to denigrate her? No one has ever refuted anything she has presented. They’ve only refuted the false propaganda about her & assume they were refuting her work.
Mr. Goldstein, "Ian" may find your claims compelling. Until you answer my questions, I will regard them as spam.
Can you name any credible person who will validate your claim that the steel we see on the ground is not sufficient to account for all the structural steel in the building?
Can you name any credible person who takes the Hutchison Effect seriously?
I have proven specious claims by William Rodriguez, Kevin Barrett, and Craig Ranke to be false. Show me you're different.
Ian, I debated Willie at this blog. I proved that his hero story is a lie; he ran away squealing and crying.
False.
He is not here. He is not anywhere. According to Der Spiegel, he lives in a basement apartment in New Jersey with a dog named Elvis.
Nobody cares about your homosexual obsession with him.
Why shouldn't I go looking for the credentials of an internet poster who made the lying claim that he was an architect? I showed he was lying. He's not here either. He ran away--he and his anonymous internet persona.
Thanks for proving my point. You were humiliated by all of us when you were stupid enough to go off searching for the credentials of a comic book character.
7 essential mysteries may be consistent with Dr. Wood's theories, but they hardly back it up.
False. The 7 essential mysteries completely back up Dr. Wood while discrediting Gage.
You're a liar, Ian. That's my opinion, and it's my right to express it.
Yes, even though you have never provided a single instance where I lied.
It's also my right to express my opinion that you're a worthless liar, lunatic, and sex stalker who has no job, no friends, was banned from the truth movement, and has a hideous haircut.
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!!!
Your persistent campaign to post libelous claims about me goes far beyond expressing opinions. Please provide me with your real name and the name of your legal counsel.
Squeal squeal squeal!
Mr. Goldstein, "Ian" may find your claims compelling. Until you answer my questions, I will regard them as spam.
Nobody cares what you think is "spam". You're a failed janitor who was banned from the truth movement for being a liar and a lunatic.
I have proven specious claims by William Rodriguez, Kevin Barrett, and Craig Ranke to be false.
See what I mean about you being a liar?
Anyway, this is all pointless hair-splitting. The important thing is that Brian Good still has utterly failed to get a single question from the widows answered. Not one.
I love watching conspiracy loons debate their pet theories.
Lyin Ian, your empty assertions are logically fallacious.
Lyin Ian, your empty assertions are logically fallacious.
Yup, this is the kind of humiliated spam I expect from Brian. For over 4 years, I've pwn3d him every day, and all he can do is squeal hysterically about it.
Next Wednesday, I will go to bed with a huge smile on my face knowing that Brian wasted another year spamming this blog rather than getting a single question from the widows answered.
Anyway, Brian, you can continue to waste your life posting squealspam on this blog, or you can concede that I've defeated you. It doesn't matter to me either way, since I'll always be here to remind you that you're a failed janitor with a hideous haircut who was banned from the truth movement for being a liar and a lunatic.
Brian prefers to create doubt & suspicion & believe false propaganda & argue about opinions of rumors of hearsay...around & around in circles on forums...instead of simply looking at the facts, just like those running the cover-up have taught him to do. There is a cure for his ODD (Obsessive Debunking Disorder). Just read the following FREE book! :)
9/11Finding the Truth - A Compilation of Articles by Andrew Johnson Focused around the research and evidence compiled by Dr. Judy Wood
http://www.checktheevidence.com/pdf/9-11%20-%20Finding%20the%20Truth.pdf
And then he can go out to a busy intersection and hold up a sign that says, "Please help! I suffer from ODD and need money to buy WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? by Dr, Judy Wood so I can discover the truth on my own and stop harassing those on Internet forums that have read her book."
Neil Kramer on the Veritas Radio Show
Neil Kramer: "Anyone, in my view, who denies her (Dr. Wood) research without taking a close look at it is either stupid or they're on the payroll. And that's a bold thing to say and I wouldn't usually bother to say something like that but I feel quite strongly about that. And I've seen her interviewed countless time, I've gone over her research at some length to say the least. I have seen numerous attempts to debunk this woman and they fail. And they fail because she is not dealing with anything other than what is there, right in front of our eyes. She's pretty on top of that ethos. She understands that that's the key to getting more people to look at what she's doing. And she definitely exposes the treachery and duplicity of some very influential factions in the 9/11 truth movement, and they just totally dismiss her work. And you cannot dismiss Dr. Judy Wood's work without being, as I said, either just plain bloody ignorant or completely compromised in some way. So I think it's very important."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A9HTnVLByOs
BTW... Dr. Wood does not present any theories. She only presents overwhelming, conclusive, and indisputable EVIDENCE that leads to the only conclusion that the World Trade Center complex was turned into dust in mid air by a type of directed energy weapon. I would know this because I read her book. You can buy it here:
http://wheredidthetowersgo.com/buy/
Uh oh, looks like Rush Limbaugh is playing footsy with twofer groups, not about 9/11 but about Syria.
However, Limbaugh changed his mind when he discovered another piece making similar accusations by a journalist named Yossef Bodansky.
In the article Bodansky argues the “deception playing out in Syria is a deception similar to the one used in Sarajevo in 1995 to provoke air strikes against the Serbs for the benefit of the Bosnian Muslims.”
According to Limbaugh, “If this is true, this is the setup of all time.”
The article alleges the “US had intel involvement dating a week before the alleged chemical weapons attack in meetings that were anticipating a war changing event.”
“We could be looking at a frame job. Pretty big setup,” says Limbaugh.
“The rebels nerve gassed themselves in order to engineer a response that takes out Bashar, putting the US on the side of Al-Qaeda,” alleges Mr. Bodansky.
Limbaugh’s skepticism of the White House narrative regarding the chemical weapons attack in Syria adds him to a growing list of people who believe the attack to be a staged false flag provocation.
The talk radio icon joins a long list of credible experts including Pat Buchanan, Ron Paul, Rand Paul and Jerome Corsi, who see evidence the Obama administration helped staged the chemical weapons attack in Syria with Al-Qaeda to frame the Assad regime.
Copyright Infowar.com, 20013
Copyright © 2013 Global Research
“GlobalResearch” is a vitriollically anti-American kook website that has peddled pretty much any all twoofer conspiracy theories. One would think Limbaugh should not better than go get into bed with these idiots.
Sorry, a couple of typos at the bottom of my last post.
“GlobalResearch” is a vitriolically anti-American kook website that has peddled pretty much any and all twoofer conspiracy theories. One would think Limbaugh should know better than go get into bed with these idiots.
I thought the subject here was about the cover-up of 9/11
Lyin Ian, your lies can not defeat me, and your claims of victory are dishonest.
Emmanuel, I don't create the doubt. You do--when you refuse to answer my questions and when you make claims that are contrary to reality.
Dr. Wood can be debunked quite easily: Her claim that all the steel was dustified is contradicted by pictures of steel on the ground, and her invocation of the unreplicated Hutchison effect is a credibility-killer.
ConsDemo, seeking to dismiss GlobalResearch simply because they are anti-American is illogical. I too have some problems with their tone, and I pay them little attention. But if you want to dismiss them it would be better to refute the facts they present. The facts themselves are anti-American. Labeling them as such is pointless if you don't refute them. Imagine a defense attorney in court trying to argue that the fact that the prosecutor makes such ugly charges against the defendant shows that the prosecutor is not objective and has nothing but a personal vendetta.
Lyin Ian, your lies can not defeat me, and your claims of victory are dishonest.
Brian, I defeat you every day on this blog. Your attempts to claim otherwise are just the kind of hysterical nonsense I expect from a failed janitor who was banned from the truth movement.
Brian, you claims that I lie are libelous. Please provide the name and contact info of your legal counsel.
My claims that you lie are not libelous because they are true, and I can prove it.
You have claimed that there are no widows. You have claimed that they have no questions. You have claimed that I am an unemployed janitor and that I flunked out of San Jose State. You have claimed that I am a sex stalker and that I have been kicked out of the 9/11 Truth movement. You can't back up any of that. Those are lies.
It's pathetically disturbing that Mr. Good believes a PC and an Internet connection makes him a qualified forensic scientist...
Cite the Chapter, section, and page number in WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? that you are disputing. No one has refuted any of the work in Dr. Wood’s book. Debunking disinformation about Dr. Wood’s work does not debunk Dr. Wood’s work! LOL What it does is demonstrate that Mr. Good is unable to refute Dr. Wood’s work so Mr. Good creates disinformation about it to refute. Does Mr. Good believe that claiming Hutchison’s work is bogus mean the WTC buildings are still there? What is the connection? Mr. Good claims that Hutchison’s work has not been replicated. That is a false internet rumor that is repeated by the gullible (and makes it easy to identify them). You can’t prove a negative, anyway, and especially when there is evidence to the contrary. By the way, how many samples can you count in this image?
http://drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/pics/MetalSamples00.jpg
(Image is located at the bottom of this page: http://drjudywood.com/articles/JJ/JJ6.html)
I never said I was a qualified forensic scientist. I said your refusal to answer my questions makes me unwilling to take you seriously and Dr. Wood marrying her DEW theory to Hutchison makes me unwilling to take her seriously.
Ian takes you seriously. But then Ian takes Willie, Barrett, Banner, and Deagle seriously.
My claims that you lie are not libelous because they are true, and I can prove it.
False.
You have claimed that there are no widows.
False. I claim that the widows are invisible. You live in a fantasy world.
You have claimed that they have no questions.
True, and you have yet to provide any evidence that they have questions.
You have claimed that I am an unemployed janitor and that I flunked out of San Jose State.
This is true.
You have claimed that I am a sex stalker and that I have been kicked out of the 9/11 Truth movement.
This is true.
Thanks for proving my point. Your claims that I am a liar are libelous. Please provide me with the name and contact info of your legal counsel
I never said I was a qualified forensic scientist.
Everyone knows this, Brian. You're well-known for being an unemployed janitor who failed out of San Jose State. That's why everyone just laughs at you when you babble about 9/11.
I said your refusal to answer my questions makes me unwilling to take you seriously and Dr. Wood marrying her DEW theory to Hutchison makes me unwilling to take her seriously.
Nobody cares.
Ian takes you seriously. But then Ian takes Willie, Barrett, Banner, and Deagle seriously.
Uh, Brian? How can I take Banner seriously when that's the name of a comic book character? You're the one who went looking for the credentials of a comic book character. HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!!!
Anyway, the reason I take Dr. Wood seriously is because her findings have been endorsed by Tony Stark, the well-known former weapons researcher who is now a peace campaigner.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Answering Mr. Good's silly questions has nothing to do with credibility but it does have everything to do with creating doubt and the cover-up of truth. Can Mr. Good cite the Chapter, section, and page number in WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? for the EVIDENCE that he is disputing? I don't believe someone who suffers from chronic ODD (obsessive debunking disorder) has that ability.
I discuss Dr. Wood's book with the guys at the barber shop where I get my flat top haircut a few times a month. They understand that making us energy slaves in a police state are the implications of suppressing the truth by people like Mr. Good. This fact only leaves two options for Mr. Good. He is either mentally challenged or on the payroll. But then, I suppose he could be both as well!
I must be a celebrity! When I was shopping the other day a young man approached me after I checked out at the register and asked me if I was on television because I looked so familiar to him! I'm always getting compliments from strangers on my physique. At 61-years-old the praise I appreciate the most are from men at the gym one half to one third my age who are just as cut as I am. Never forget that good health, wealth, and wisdom is a many faceted gem to be cherished.
Dr. Wood's book is not about a conspiracy theory or a theory at all. It is a 540 page book about factual evidence, empirical evidence that reveals the truth in a way that is undeniable to anyone who reads it. Dr. Wood's book has not been refuted by anyone, nor can it be. Those that choose to focus on hearsay, speculation, conspiracy theories, or unqualified opinions while ignoring irrefutable factual evidence by avoiding it is what keeps a cover-up in place. Diverting the public to arguing between the two false choices of "9/11 Truthers" verses "The Official 9/11 Conspiracy Theory" while ignoring the facts is classic perception management designed to hide and obscure the evidence.
It wasn't poor construction, jet fuel, demolition charges of any type, missiles or planes, mini-nukes, or super-duper-micro-mini-nano-thermite that turned two quarter mile high buildings with a combined weight of over a million tons into microscopic dust particles in mid-air taking less than 10 seconds each. There were over 100 floors in each tower. Try clapping your hands 100 times in 10 seconds.
The truth does not depend on who supports it. Truth is not a club or a matter of “opinion” or "belief". Neither is truth a political or economic objective. Truth doesn’t have sides. The truth is singular and the truth is unifying. By reading Dr. Wood's research and collection of evidence as compiled in her book the truth is known, so there is no need to "Re-investigate 9/11" or "call for a new investigation" unless the objective is to divert everyone away from the truth. If you want unity, then seek the truth by reading her book. If you were assigned to do a book report, would you read the book or rely on rumors, conjecture, and uninformed opinions from other people like Mr. Good? This isn't about beliefs, it is about evidence.
Now those that have read her book know the truth. Those covering it up should be held accountable. After all, it is the cover up that has enabled what has transpired since 9/11, not what happened on 9/11. So the cover up of 9/11 has been a far worse crime than 9/11 itself. Remember, the truth is known and is knowable. What should be done about those covering it up?
Oh my, Mr. Goldstein is so buff and butch, he must be right!
But he won't answer my questions, and his claims are contradicted by the evidence. Gosh, I'm so confused!
Dr. Wood's book is not about a conspiracy theory or a theory at all. It is a 540 page book about factual evidence, empirical evidence that reveals the truth in a way that is undeniable to anyone who reads it. Dr. Wood's book has not been refuted by anyone, nor can it be.
I'll let you in on a little secret, Emmanuel. We *know* all of this. Of course Dr. Wood is right. The thing is, we don't care, because we're being paid too handsomely for our continued denial.
I'm even comfortable breaking character and admitting that I know, because the public will never believe it. Never even consider it. My admission will be written off as some kind of joke.
Long story short - unless you're prepared to pay more than we are now earning, the denials will continue, the truth will never emerge, and Dr. Wood will be just another unsung hero. It's that simple.
Plus smart and rich too!
Why is criticizing Dr. Judy Wood more important than the evidence she presents? I've read WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? and didn't find anything to criticize, muddle up, or pick apart. I hope you recover from your ODD. Got to get to the gym. Have a great day Mr. Good. :)
Can you name any credible person who will validate your claim that the steel we see on the ground is not sufficient to account for all the structural steel in the building?
Can you name any credible person who takes the Hutchison Effect seriously?
If you can't, why should we take your advice and buy a $40 book?
Goat fucker (aka, "snug.bug") STFU. You're not a debunker, you're a fraud and a charlatan, who refuses to answer legitimate questions -- just like your fellow deranged troofer "Emmanuel Goldstein".
You're as duplicitous as you are dishonest, "snug.bug."
Now go play in the freeway, gay boi.
NIST doesn't provide any calcs to justify the pulverization of the concrete or the speed of collapse. So why should I?
NIST in fact claims that they did not analyze the towers' collapses--a bizarre claim to make when a) one of the lead investigators, Dr. John Gross, had done his PhD work on progressive collapse and b) NIST claimed it had done computer models of the collapses but had rejected their findings.
"snug.bug" whines, "...NIST doesn't provide any calcs to justify the pulverization of the concrete or the speed of collapse. So why should I?"
Don't change the subject and try rationalize away your anti-social behavior, scumbag. You demand that others answer your idiotic "questions;" yet, when you are asked to do the same, you steadfastly refuse to answer any question.
Not only are you a charlatan and a fraud, you're duplicitous, too. And you wonder why everyone finds you so revolting?
Your questions are idiotic. Mine aren't. I asked Mr. Goldstein to back up the two central assertions of Dr. Wood's thesis. He won't do it.
On the contrary, liar, your questions, as always, are bilge. Like all troofers, you focus your ADD-addled mind on idiotic, undocumented, and, in most cases, credulous nonsense like "Hutchison Effect" and (your favorite) "nanothermite."
Pot meet kettle.
The goal, as always, is to have a pissing match over meaningless minutia, while you utterly miss the point.
"...Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel." -- Matthew 23:24
What exactly is bilgeous about my questions for Mr. Goldstein?
Can you name any credible person who will validate your claim that the steel we see on the ground is not sufficient to account for all the structural steel in the building?
Can you name any credible person who takes the Hutchison Effect seriously?
If you can't, why should we take your advice and buy a $40 book?
The idiot whines, "...What exactly is bilgeous about my questions for Mr. Goldstein?
I just explained it to you, idiot. Read it again, jackass: Like all troofers, you focus your ADD-addled mind on idiotic, undocumented, and, in most cases, credulous nonsense like "Hutchison Effect" and (your favorite) "nanothermite."
Incapable of learning, aren't you, idiot? Is it any wonder that you're a pathetic college dropout who can't hold down a job mopping floors? Probably not.
The jackass brays, "...Can you name any credible person who will validate your claim that the steel we see on the ground is not sufficient to account for all the structural steel in the building?
I didn't make the claim, idiot. Why ask me?
The braying jackass moans, "...Can you name any credible person who takes the Hutchison Effect seriously?"
Again, idiot, I didn't make the claim, so why is it incumbent on me to prove or disprove Goldstein's bilge?
The cretin whines, "...If you can't, why should we take your advice and buy a $40 book?"
I didn't ask you to "buy" anything -- you delusional 'tard.
Is it any wonder that you're so confused about the events of 11 September 2001?
You're an idiot (and that's an insult to idiots.)
Oh my, Mr. Goldstein is so buff and butch, he must be right!
Brian, why must you insert your homosexual fantasies into every discussion of 9/11?
NIST doesn't provide any calcs to justify the pulverization of the concrete or the speed of collapse.
Why should NIST provide calculations to justify the delusions of a failed janitor who believes in magic thermite elves?
Ian, I wasn't the one bragging about being butch and buff. Mr. Goldstein was. Maybe if you would read the posts before responding to them, your responses would make more sense.
NIST needs calcs not to justify any delusions, but to fulfill their own stated objective of explaining "why and how" the towers collapsed.
ButtGale, so your opinion that my questions are bilgeous is apparently based on the belief that I addressed them to you. I quite clearly addressed them to Mr. Goldstein. Maybe if you would read the posts before responding to them, your responses would make more sense.
The lying liar lies, "...ButtGale, so your opinion that my questions are bilgeous [SIC] is apparently based on the belief that I addressed them to you. "
Idiot, you addressed me directly in your reply when you wrote, ""...What exactly is bilgeous [SIC] about my questions for Mr. Goldstein?"
Thus, why did you immediately repeat your questions as though they were addressed to me?
The lying liar leis, "...I quite clearly addressed them to Mr. Goldstein."
Another bald-faced lie. Your post was addressed directly to me and in response to my comments -- you Goddamned liar.
The arrogant liar lies, "...Maybe if you would read the posts before responding to them, your responses would make more sense."
I can read just fine -- you arrogant college dropout. Is it any wonder that you can't hold down a job mopping floors? Hell, it's obvious that you're sniffing glue as this thread unfolds. In fact, you're so out of your mind on model airplane glue that you can't tell which end is up let alone know who you're trying to address. Fuckin' degenerate.
The goat fucker wrote, "bilgeous" [SIC]
Making up words now, idiot?
This comment has been removed by the author.
I'd say you're losing it but that would imply that you once had it, which you didn't.
So what's next, jackass? Will you ask "Emmanuel Goldstein" to substantiate his preposterous claim that says "the buildings went up"?
Tilt at windmills much, 'tard?
Oh, that's right! Of course you do. After all, you're an insane gasbag.
Ian, I wasn't the one bragging about being butch and buff. Mr. Goldstein was. Maybe if you would read the posts before responding to them, your responses would make more sense.
You bring your homosexual infatuations into every discussion. Willie Rodriguez, baseball, comic books, etc. The first thing you think of is "hot sexy men".
NIST needs calcs not to justify any delusions, but to fulfill their own stated objective of explaining "why and how" the towers collapsed.
Why: because planes hit them.
How: gravity.
Learn to Google.
People attack those who support Dr. Wood because they cannot attack the evidence she presents. People attack each other to avoid looking at the evidence Dr. Wood presents. This is what keeps the cover-up in place. "Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth." Mr. Good's questions are deductive fallacies and do not deserve an answer. All he has to do is read Dr. Wood's book and he will stop attacking those that have. It's that simple! :)
Description of Fallacies
In order to understand what a fallacy is, one must understand what an argument is. Very briefly, an argument consists of one or more premises and one conclusion. A premise is a statement (a sentence that is either true or false) that is offered in support of the claim being made, which is the conclusion (which is also a sentence that is either true or false).
There are two main types of arguments: deductive and inductive. A deductive argument is an argument such that the premises provide (or appear to provide) complete support for the conclusion. An inductive argument is an argument such that the premises provide (or appear to provide) some degree of support (but less than complete support) for the conclusion. If the premises actually provide the required degree of support for the conclusion, then the argument is a good one. A good deductive argument is known as a valid argument and is such that if all its premises are true, then its conclusion must be true. If all the argument is valid and actually has all true premises, then it is known as a sound argument. If it is invalid or has one or more false premises, it will be unsound. A good inductive argument is known as a strong (or "cogent") inductive argument. It is such that if the premises are true, the conclusion is likely to be true.
A fallacy is, very generally, an error in reasoning. This differs from a factual error, which is simply being wrong about the facts. To be more specific, a fallacy is an "argument" in which the premises given for the conclusion do not provide the needed degree of support. A deductive fallacy is a deductive argument that is invalid (it is such that it could have all true premises and still have a false conclusion). An inductive fallacy is less formal than a deductive fallacy. They are simply "arguments" which appear to be inductive arguments, but the premises do not provided enough support for the conclusion. In such cases, even if the premises were true, the conclusion would not be more likely to be true.
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/
Ian, if the buildings fell because the planes hit them, they would have fallen immediately, not an hour later. If they fell from gravity, they would have fallen the first time they were hit by a strong wind.
Mr. Goldstein, why do you refuse to answer my questions?
Can you name any credible person who will validate your claim that the steel we see on the ground is not sufficient to account for all the structural steel in the building?
Can you name any credible person who takes the Hutchison Effect seriously?
If you can't, why should we take your advice and buy a $40 book?
www.nizkor.org
Uh-oh. Maybe it really is Blakeney.
Let's evaluate Mr. Good's critical thinking skills...
Jim Fetzer is charged with murder for shooting Richard Gage, who staggered 10 feet then died. Mr. Good, acting as Jim Fetzer's attorney, would probably try to defend him saying that the prosecution has to demonstrate that Jim Fetzer's gun is technologically capable of shooting Richard Gage to death. Mr. Good doesn't dispute that Richard Gage died shortly after Jim Fetzer fired his gun at Richard Gage. Will Mr. Good then insist that the prosecution must demonstrate that Jim Fetzer's gun is capable of killing Richard Gage and demand that Richard Gage be shot to death in court to prove it? Will Mr. Good claim that if Richard Gage cannot walk into court, be shot, and then die as a result, then the prosecution has no case?
Likewise, does Mr. Good believe that a world's record in the mile is only valid unless other runners can repeat it?
This is why an opinion and an internet connection doesn't make Mr. Good a scientist.
There is a cure for Mr. Good's ODD (Obsessive Debunking Disorder). All he has to do is read WHERE DID THE TOWERS GO? by Dr. Judy Wood! It really is that simple. :)
http://wheredidthetowersgo.com/buy/
IOW, Mr. Goldstein, you refuse to answer my questions and can only give the superficial appearance of justifying your refusal to do so by resorting to illegitimate analogies.
Guns are a proven technology, and have been for centuries. There is no reasonable doubt that guns are capable of shooting people. DEWs are unproven technology to those of us outside the area of classified military research. While it is certainly theoretically possible that the US military has available DEW weapons capable of bringing down the towers, the doubt that they exist on the scale you claim--able to dustify most of the steel structure--is a reasonable doubt.
There is no need to demand proof of the ability of DEW weapons to destroy the towers. First let us prove that DEWs exist that are capable of dustify a USPS mailbox, and then we can extend the investigation from there.
Mr. Good is not a skeptic. He is a pseudoskeptic. Mr. Good declares himself merely "skeptical" of Dr. Wood's conclusion from ALL of the evidence (not SOME of the evidence) that a type of directed energy weapon "dustified" the World Trade Center complex on 9/11, but in reality he would not be convinced by ANY evidence. This is essentially cloaked denialism, as there is a vast amount of REAL evidence which he is willfully ignoring. Even if the latter is more accurate, saying "I am skeptical of X" seems more reasonable than saying "I don't accept X and never will regardless of the evidence". Real skeptics exhibit consistency with the scientific method and are always prepared to change their positions based on evidence.
A Beginner's Guide to Scientific Method by Stephen S. Carey
http://www.amazon.com/A-Beginners-Guide-Scientific-Method/dp/1111305552/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1378654678&sr=8-1&keywords=A+Beginner%27s+Guide+to+Scientific+Method
No one can refute anything in Dr. Wood's book, so they search for another way to insert doubt. Discussions shift away from the evidence, and on to ways to insert doubt by conspiracy theories and speculation.
Dr. Wood wasn't "allowed" or "not allowed" to publish her book. She had a publisher who refused to publish the book and refused to let her out of the contract for about two years. (I think it was hurting that publisher's reputation so he finally let her out of the contract.) But in this, Dr. Wood figured out a way around the censorship game and published the book herself, doing all of the work on the book. The censorship is pretty wide-spread, too. Why is there no Wikipedia page about Dr. Wood? Those who've tried to post one find it is deleted in less than an hour. Yet Dr. Wood is the only person to have brought forth a federal court case with irrefutable evidence.
Not having a publisher advertise her book and a Truther Movement to denigrate it, it's easy to keep the cover up in place. (Note, on amazon, they advertise books published by publishing companies but suppress the self-published books.) Most people are brainwashed by the official story and/or by the Truther Movement. Why else is the Truther Movement allowed to thrive? Answer: because it's designed to manages the cover up.
Think about it. The truth of this matter is not difficult to understand. You look at the image on the cover of Dr. Wood's book and it is obviously not a picture of a building collapsing, nor a picture of a nuke going off, nor a picture of bombs blowing up. It's a picture of a building turning to dust in mid air. This image was on TeeVee on 9/11/01. People saw it, but they were brainwashed into calling it "a collapse" then they argue about opinions of guesses of theories of ideas of hearsay of rumors of....about anything that has nothing to do with the evidence. THAT is the biggest problem. People prefer to believe what they are told over what they observe.
Once your read Dr. Wood's book and become de-programmed, most people have a real "Duh! How could I have been so gullible?" moment. So, all that is needed to keep the cover up in place is to divert people away from Dr. Wood's book by inserting doubt, using name calling, running a $600,000 ad campaign to dumb people down into following sound bites...
Dr. Wood's book is spot-on. The problem is that people are too dumbed down and brainwashed to think for themselves. Dr. Wood's book is no threat to "the crew" than runs things. They know that no TeeVee news person will hold up the book on air and tell people to read it. For most people, if they are not told to read it by someone on TeeVee, then they won't read it. And for the few people coming out of the door for lie#1, there's the door to lie#2 waiting for them...and Richard Gage is there to help people find that door.
People interested in the truth getting out become frustrated when it becomes evident how big the cover up campaign is. With this frustration, they may blame Dr. Wood for why more people don't know of her work and begin to speculate that there must be something wrong with what she's doing. Creating doubt like that fuels the cover up and on it goes. You can lead a horse to water, but if he is too brainwashed to drink it, it's not the water's fault.
People have been dumbed-down and brainwashed to memorize answers and not think for themselves. They recite talking points they've memorized from their leaders. When their leaders are not honest, they don't know any better.
How do we fix that? Do we blame the one person with courage enough to stand up and speak the truth?
There's no need to refute anything in Dr. Wood's book. When you refuse to answer my questions, there's no reason to take your advice to buy her $40 book. Does Dr. Wood know you are trashing her reputation by making foolish recommendations?
Post a Comment
<< Home