JFK RFK MLK Assassination Forum

A cautionary tale-A few months ago I took my engineering brother to listen to a talk given by Richard Gage. I had hoped he'd deliver a measured and scientific case for demolition, instead he came across as a fanatical loon. Perhaps I am being overly critical, but I fear he may be doing more harm than good.

ThomZajac wrote:A cautionary tale-A few months ago I took my engineering brother to listen to a talk given by Richard Gage. I had hoped he'd deliver a measured and scientific case for demolition, instead he came across as a fanatical loon. Perhaps I am being overly critical, but I fear he may be doing more harm than good.I'm curious, Thom. Did Richard Gage come across as fanatical loon because he said something that wasn't true or factually incorrect?Or, did he come across as a fanatical loon for some other reason, like the way he talks or something?

Mostly the latter, but there was plenty of the former.He came across like a crazed preacher explaining why his way was the only way. High pitched, fast, whinny.He was fast and loose with the facts too, and assumed that questionable conclusions, presented in a second or two, were iron clad, and he'd build one on top of another on top of another. Metaphorically speaking, he was building a structure that could not support itself. I know there's no reason for him to be what I wanted him to be, but I wanted a professor type, not a high-pitched preacher type.

ThomZajac wrote:Mostly the latter, but there was plenty of the former.He came across like a crazed preacher explaining why his way was the only way. High pitched, fast, whinny.He was fast and loose with the facts too, and assumed that questionable conclusions, presented in a second or two, were iron clad, and he'd build one on top of another on top of another. Metaphorically speaking, he was building a structure that could not support itself. I know there's no reason for him to be what I wanted him to be, but I wanted a professor type, not a high-pitched preacher type."Plenty of the former" as in plenty of factual errors? Okay, for example, what did he claim about 9/11 that was not factual?I'll put it another way. In the interview posted earlier with the Fresno, CA TV station news, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oO2yT0uBQbMhe seems very straight forward. I also didn't find anything that he said as being false.

Okay, fair enough. He spoke of the chemical composition of the dust, and concluded that it was conclusive proof of the buildings having come down due to explosives. He may be right, but he simply did not make the case. He raced through it and did not acknowledge that reasonable people (my engineering brother, for instance) might see things in a different light, or find other explanations for what was found. He spoke of squibs going off (some puffs were visible, some he saw were not), but failed to even address what else they could have been, And so he would machine gun us with sentence after sentence after sentence filled with evidence in this way, and frankly, if was somewhat offensive.He took out two small cardboard boxes and held one a few feet off the floor, and held the other at the same height over a larger cardboard 'tower,' then dropped them at the same time in an attempt to demonstrate resistance, which seemed to me like something out of elementary school. A carboard box and a steel-framed superstructure hold virtually nothing in common.He said for some 'unknown reason' the second tower fell first, yet every non-demolition person will tell you that was because the second tower was struck lower and had far more weight above it.Don't get me wrong; I am of the opinion that the towers were brought down by explosives. But I think I can discern a well structured presentation, and his was not one of those. He just didn't make his case, in my opinion. I polled a number of my trusted conspiracy compatriots and the feeling was unanimous. Richard Gage is an odd guy, not very likable really, and he clearly has some ego problems. Gage's interview on the Fresno tv station was decent (with some warning flags, but decent), but his presentation was of an entirely different tenor. I am more critical of spokespeople who present my point of view than I am of those who oppose it because I want my side to be presented in a professional, logical, calm, and heartfelt kind of way. Richard Gage? Yuck!

ThomZajac wrote:Okay, fair enough. He spoke of the chemical composition of the dust, and concluded that it was conclusive proof of the buildings having come down due to explosives. He may be right, but he simply did not make the case. He raced through it and did not acknowledge that reasonable people (my engineering brother, for instance) might see things in a different light, or find other explanations for what was found. He spoke of squibs going off (some puffs were visible, some he saw were not), but failed to even address what else they could have been, And so he would machine gun us with sentence after sentence after sentence filled with evidence in this way, and frankly, if was somewhat offensive.He took out two small cardboard boxes and held one a few feet off the floor, and held the other at the same height over a larger cardboard 'tower,' then dropped them at the same time in an attempt to demonstrate resistance, which seemed to me like something out of elementary school. A carboard box and a steel-framed superstructure hold virtually nothing in common.He said for some 'unknown reason' the second tower fell first, yet every non-demolition person will tell you that was because the second tower was struck lower and had far more weight above it.Don't get me wrong; I am of the opinion that the towers were brought down by explosives. But I think I can discern a well structured presentation, and his was not one of those. He just didn't make his case, in my opinion. I polled a number of my trusted conspiracy compatriots and the feeling was unanimous. Richard Gage is an odd guy, not very likable really, and he clearly has some ego problems. Gage's interview on the Fresno tv station was decent (with some warning flags, but decent), but his presentation was of an entirely different tenor. I am more critical of spokespeople who present my point of view than I am of those who oppose it because I want my side to be presented in a professional, logical, calm, and heartfelt kind of way. Richard Gage? Yuck!I totally get your point, and I agree. That stuff with the cardboard boxes sounds funny.

He had a lot of great information too, but it was mixed in with the weirdness. As you have mentioned many times, there is a mountain of overwhelming evidence pointing toward demolition and the opportunity to have wired the buildings beforehand. The events of 9/11 are this generation's Kennedy assassination, perpetuated, we think, by essentially the same forces. And, like the Kennedy assassination, we see the bad guys getting away with it- because it becomes more and more evident to us that the bad guys are running the show. It's outrageous, Pasquale, and I am grateful that you are willing to stand up and shout.What should have become unavoidably obvious to most clear-thinking Americans, is that the MSM is owned and run by the ruling forces- the banking and war machine. That so many Americans, however, are outraged by the 'liberal' press demonstrates just how Orwellian our existence has become.

ThomZajac wrote:He had a lot of great information too, but it was mixed in with the weirdness. As you have mentioned many times, there is a mountain of overwhelming evidence pointing toward demolition and the opportunity to have wired the buildings beforehand. The events of 9/11 are this generation's Kennedy assassination, perpetuated, we think, by essentially the same forces. And, like the Kennedy assassination, we see the bad guys getting away with it- because it becomes more and more evident to us that the bad guys are running the show. It's outrageous, Pasquale, and I am grateful that you are willing to stand up and shout.What should have become unavoidably obvious to most clear-thinking Americans, is that the MSM is owned and run by the ruling forces- the banking and war machine. That so many Americans, however, are outraged by the 'liberal' press demonstrates just how Orwellian our existence has become.Amen!It's surprisingly easy to demonstrate what companies and corporations own what forms of media, but people just don't see the connection sometimes. It's weird.

Speaking of the MSM, if anyone wants to contact Chris Matthews about his bogus interview with Gerald Posner and the way he cut off the guy debating Vincent Bugliosi, here is the email address for his show...hardball@msnbc.com Let's give him our opinion folks!