It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Upcoming 9/11 team debate on Coast to Coast on July 31, which I'm consulting on

page: 1
13
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 04:04 PM
link   
Hi all,
Richard Gage of AE911Truth.org and a team of scientists are scheduled to debate a team of JREF debunkers on the Coast to Coast program. Gage has put me on the mailing list after reading my suggestions to him in how to debate the JREF crowd, as a consultant to his team.

Gage and his team of scientists, which include Kevin Ryan and Neils Harritt, will debate a team from the JREF. All we know is that Dave Thomas will be on the other side. We don't know who else they will have on their team.

The debate is scheduled on Coast to Coast for July 31 at this point. So mark that on your calendar. I think you can listen in either on your AM radio station or the coast to coast website. www.coasttocoastam.com...

I talked to Gage for an hour on the phone and gave him some insights and key strategies for exposing the JREFers and their kind, which are outlined on my SCEPCOP site: www.debunkingskeptics.com...

I've also announced this debate in my SCEPCOP forum, which I will post further updates to:

www.debunkingskeptics.com...

Anyhow, if any of you have any tips or suggestions for Mr. Gage and his team, feel free to post them here, and I will forward them to him.

Should he cover a few strong undebunkable arguments, or try to cover all ten of the features of controlled demolition of the WTC? Which arguments should be emphasized most?

The debate will be primarily about the WTC and Building 7 collapse, not about the other issues surrounding 9/11.

Thanks,
Winston

[edit on 27-6-2010 by WWu777]

[edit on 27-6-2010 by WWu777]




posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 04:26 PM
link   
Hey thats pretty cool you talked to him, and that he picked you as a consultant! Also thanks for the heads up, I think i'll tune into that! As for advice i'm not informed enough either way, but hopefully i'll be more so after hearing the debate!







nice post, S&F



posted on Jun, 27 2010 @ 07:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by WWu777
Anyhow, if any of you have any tips or suggestions for Mr. Gage and his team, feel free to post them here, and I will forward them to him.

Should he cover a few strong undebunkable arguments, or try to cover all ten of the features of controlled demolition of the WTC? Which arguments should be emphasized most?


Here's one- how about having him explain how these supernatural explosives that appeared out of nowhere, that noone could see, and left no evidence of any blast behind, got into the building to begin with. Gage's arguments rely 100% on his audience being thoroughly ignorant of the material he's covering, so if he encounters someone who actually knows the security, maintenance, and inspection schedules of the towers, Gage is going to have his derriere handed to him.

A possible theory based upon an impossible scenario makes it an impossible theory, regardless of how many times you want to debate it.


The debate will be primarily about the WTC and Building 7 collapse, not about the other issues surrounding 9/11.


Yeah, that figures. A plane crashed into the Pentagon and a plane crashed in Shanksville, proving that hijacked passenger jets could and were being used as weapons. Gage has to distract his audience to ignore the fact that the towers were hit by those very planes, and that the towers started collapsing at the very spots where the planes had hit. Otherwise, he's required to start wallowing in never ending chains of circular logic and make believe accusations on how the plane impacts were coordinated to hit where explosives were planted.

Gage isn't out to research the facts. He's out to foist his controlled demolitions stories entirely at the expense of the truth.


[edit on 27-6-2010 by GoodOlDave]



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 04:48 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


I don't know Dave, wasn't a couple Brinks guys on the 11th floor of the WTC, while on their way to a Bank of America, robbed of 1.6 million in cash in 1998?

All those two guys had to do, that robbed the two Brinks guys, was create a couple fake ID's and they were able to waltz in with duffel bags filled with guns and ski masks right past the security and waltz back out with the cash stuffed duffel bags after the robbery.

Based just off that event alone I think it's safe to say that anyone with fake employee ID's could have brought in whatever the heck they wanted and had access to roam freely.

en.wikipedia.org...



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 05:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by GoodOlDave

Originally posted by WWu777
Anyhow, if any of you have any tips or suggestions for Mr. Gage and his team, feel free to post them here, and I will forward them to him.

Should he cover a few strong undebunkable arguments, or try to cover all ten of the features of controlled demolition of the WTC? Which arguments should be emphasized most?


Here's one- how about having him explain how these supernatural explosives that appeared out of nowhere, that noone could see, and left no evidence of any blast behind, got into the building to begin with. Gage's arguments rely 100% on his audience being thoroughly ignorant of the material he's covering, so if he encounters someone who actually knows the security, maintenance, and inspection schedules of the towers, Gage is going to have his derriere handed to him.

A possible theory based upon an impossible scenario makes it an impossible theory, regardless of how many times you want to debate it.


The debate will be primarily about the WTC and Building 7 collapse, not about the other issues surrounding 9/11.


Yeah, that figures. A plane crashed into the Pentagon and a plane crashed in Shanksville, proving that hijacked passenger jets could and were being used as weapons. Gage has to distract his audience to ignore the fact that the towers were hit by those very planes, and that the towers started collapsing at the very spots where the planes had hit. Otherwise, he's required to start wallowing in never ending chains of circular logic and make believe accusations on how the plane impacts were coordinated to hit where explosives were planted.

Gage isn't out to research the facts. He's out to foist his controlled demolitions stories entirely at the expense of the truth.


[edit on 27-6-2010 by GoodOlDave]


Gage has already explained that in his 2 hour film "9/11 Blueprint for Truth". He covered how the explosives might have been planted, and the mysterious evacuations that took place in the WTC prior to 9/11.

Obviously you have not done your homework.

But even if there are questions he can't answer, so what? There are HUNDREDS of questions that the US government and puppets like you can't answer about 9/11 that CONTRADICT the official story as well. HUNDREDS!

This includes Building 7 and it's unexplained collapse, numerous holes in the Pentagon Crash, etc. etc.

Let's see you try to explain this one buster:
www.abovetopsecret.com...

Here are some tough questions for you that your side tends to avoid:

First, see these clips:

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

1. Ok so why did the FBI ignore numerous warnings from its own agents and leads just before 9/11 that terrorist attacks were imminent?

2. Why did the hijackers get visas into the US so easily? And why was the US consulate agent told not to talk about the visas given to the hijackers or report it?

3. And why was Bin Laden's family safely flown out of the US when OBL was public enemy number one?

This YouTuber put it eloquently:

"funny thing,Bush demands that all leaders of Al-Qaeda be handed over to the US
yet they have Bin Laden's family in the US,flown off after 9/11
the only way they could receive any info on Osama was by his family,yet they were flown out of the country,away from Surveillance.
instead of being under protected custody and Surveillance by the government,they are flown to safety overseas
wow,either the government is really stupid or they are hiding something"

How come the mainstream media is too chicken# and controlled to cover all this?



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 05:56 AM
link   
I was about to write a thing about how I could imagine this debate going - basically Truther nonsense getting shot down piece by piece, and in response the TM boys changing the subject each time. "Yeah but whaddabout the pentaCON... See what I did there?!"

Then I thought, why bother.

Then I read the last post and I had to laugh.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 06:20 AM
link   
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 

Here's one- how about having him explain how these supernatural explosives that appeared out of nowhere, that noone could see, and left no evidence of any blast behind, got into the building to begin with.

Here`s one for you.
Can you explain how the explosives got into building 7 in a couple of hours?
Or are you gonna tell me that was brought down by fire?
As for a plane hitting the Pentagon...........please...use common sense.
There is NO evidence at all that a plane hit the Pentagon.
As for the plane that was shot down.
That plane was intended for building 7.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 06:28 AM
link   

Originally posted by PersonalChoice
reply to post by GoodOlDave
 


I don't know Dave, wasn't a couple Brinks guys on the 11th floor of the WTC, while on their way to a Bank of America, robbed of 1.6 million in cash in 1998?

All those two guys had to do, that robbed the two Brinks guys, was create a couple fake ID's and they were able to waltz in with duffel bags filled with guns and ski masks right past the security and waltz back out with the cash stuffed duffel bags after the robbery.

Based just off that event alone I think it's safe to say that anyone with fake employee ID's could have brought in whatever the heck they wanted and had access to roam freely.

en.wikipedia.org...


And don't forget:

1. George Bush's brother was in charge of security at the WTC.

2. There were mysterious power downs and evacuations in the WTC in the weeks prior to 9/11.

You can look these up.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 06:31 AM
link   

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
I was about to write a thing about how I could imagine this debate going - basically Truther nonsense getting shot down piece by piece, and in response the TM boys changing the subject each time. "Yeah but whaddabout the pentaCON... See what I did there?!"

Then I thought, why bother.

Then I read the last post and I had to laugh.


Nope, you got it reversed. The official defenders are the ones who obfuscate the issue, change the subject, use ad hominem attacks, use ridicule tactics, and infiltrate the Truth groups to try to break them down.

Remember how they infiltrated The Tea Party organization and destroyed it at the top? And how they brought down the Burning Man festivals?

Why would the side of truth need to infiltrate? That's what people with evil diabolical intentions do.


[edit on 28-6-2010 by WWu777]



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 06:37 AM
link   

Originally posted by WWu777

1. George Bush's brother was in charge of security at the WTC.



No. No, he wasn't.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 06:41 AM
link   
reply to post by WWu777
 


Why did you change the subject then?

I mean, christ, you managed actually to change your own subject. The first example of a pre-emptive "whaddabout..." I've seen from a Truther. Impressive.

As for diabolical intentions, are you sure? I don't think I've got diabolical intentions, but then I'd rather eat my own foot than go to a Tea Party rally, even if it was to "infiltrate" it.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 07:05 AM
link   
I always make sure that the obvious fallacies are removed from the debate before the debate even begins. Stuff like

* it would've taken thousands of government conspirators to pull this off

That's been debunked to death, and is no longer a valid debate point. It merely distracts and delays the examination of serious points of examination - applied physics of a true progressive collapse, and aspects that can't get ground up with conjecture. It only took Rumsfeld to threaten the top Pentagon Brass (that press conference on 9-10-01 announcing the plan to investigate 2.3 trillion in unaccounted-for Pentagon spending was the final public threat) to play ball or face federal fraud charges, and the Bush/Cheney post-attack marketing team, with the help of the Anthrax Attacks to shut down the media inquiries. In truth, a relative handful of government insiders was all that was needed. That, and the top-down structure of the military and corporate worlds.

* it would've taken miles of det cord to wire the building

Our casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan are mostly IED, which are triggered by RF (cell phones). The blast points were all RF triggered C4 packs placed by teams riding the freight elevators within the central core matrix area. The vlasts removed the load-bearing structure and the blast force of each internal detonation removed the outer perimeter support by throwing the inner steel through it. This kept the explosions masked deep within the building itself and allowed the omni-directional concussion and shrapnel to take out the visible perimeter. The net result was aplausible denial of planted explosives. The blast sequence was reconfigured after the impacts to initiate at the impact levels for each building, after the entire sequence was pre-loaded onto a laptop that ran a low-wattage RF transmitter from a lower manhattan office building with line of sight proximity.

* someone would have cracked under guilt stress and exposed the whole thing by now

The ops teams were from Blackwater Inc, and were non-US mercenaries (Eastern European and Soviet ex-KGB demo specialists) who couldn't give a damn about anyone, especially Americans. Blackwater has grown exponentially as a direct (and ony) result of the post-9/11 War on Terror. They still have big contracts from the US Pentagon (just last week even).

Also, the Anthrax Attacks were specifically linked (by the letters themselves) to the 9/11 attacks, and were never solved by the FBI, and are not being actively investigated anymore. This shut down all government and MSM investigation into the 9/11 Attacks since the Anthrax Attacks occurred. This is important to note, since it explains the media blackout and government inaction. There are more Anthrax letters (or worse) being held over us in the event that a real investigation starts up.


*********************************


These are some usual "debunking points", along with the credible responses. I'm sure you'll get plenty more. Just don't allow the weird stuff - like hologram jet planes and deathstar rays from outer space - to derail the entire thing. The debunkers will use the fringe arguments to make it all sound stupid. The 9/11 Attacks weren't brilliant or masterful. They were blunt and executed clumsily, but the Anthrax Attacks shut down all investigations. It was a two prong attack strategy, and the 2nd prong is still in full effect, along with the constant effort to turn the debate into a parlor game - killing it off as a real issue for good. This is why it's working for the Cheney-fronted hit team, and why it will work regardless of this debate or any debate.

The motive has been trillions of dollars in defense and security technology contracts. The established extortion platform also allowed the TARP bankster bailout scheme to work, making them trillions in short order with that run at our Treasury. It's all part of one on-going extortion scheme that was triggered by the 9/11 Attacks.

[edit on 28-6-2010 by NorEaster]



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 08:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by PersonalChoice
I don't know Dave, wasn't a couple Brinks guys on the 11th floor of the WTC, while on their way to a Bank of America, robbed of 1.6 million in cash in 1998?


I wouldn't doubt it. When I visited the towers shortly after it was completed, security was almost nonexistant. That changed in 2003 after the first WTC bombing, when security was beefed up and ID cards were issued. They knew the towers had been targeted by terrorists and they knew they were going to hit it again.

Besides, it's apples and oranges to compare sneaking in a duffel bag in one single day with sneaking in tons of explosives and planting them in every nook and cranny throughout the course of at least six months. Those towers were flipping huge, and they were two of them.

Planting bombs secretly and planting controlled demolitions is a contradiction. If they're secret bombs they wouldn't work as controlled demolitions against the structure, and if they were controlled demolitions they'd be blatant as a bull in a china shop.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 09:05 AM
link   

Originally posted by WWu777

And don't forget:

1. George Bush's brother was in charge of security at the WTC.

2. There were mysterious power downs and evacuations in the WTC in the weeks prior to 9/11.

You can look these up.


I did look it up, and you're quoting your facts poorly-

A) Marvin Bush 1) was on the board of directors of the company that owned the company in charge if security, which does NOT make him "in charge of security", and 2) he left almost a full year before 9/11 so he wasn't even on the board of directors at the time

B) the "mysterious power downs" were upgrades to the cabling. How "mysterious" could they be when the port authority told everyone they were going to happen in advance, and we know they told everyone in advance becuase it's the entire reason you know about them. Even then, it was only 1/2 of ONE building. There were probably going to be followup upgrades, but they never got the chance.

Now, this is exactly why I mentioned that Gage has to rely 100% on his audience being uninformed of the information he's telling them. It's the only way he can convince anyone of his improbable claims, and misrepresentations exactly like this are a sterling case in point. If you're going to be the consultant of Gage as you say, and this is an example of the material that Gage is goign to present, then Gage has lost the debate before he even began.


[edit on 28-6-2010 by GoodOlDave]



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 09:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by NorEaster
The blast points were all RF triggered C4 packs placed by teams riding the freight elevators within the central core matrix area. The vlasts removed the load-bearing structure and the blast force of each internal detonation removed the outer perimeter support by throwing the inner steel through it. This kept the explosions masked deep within the building itself and allowed the omni-directional concussion and shrapnel to take out the visible perimeter. The net result was aplausible denial of planted explosives.


So how is it that the hundreds of steel workers, fire fighters, police, photographers, etc etc etc working at ground zero happened to miss all this steel that had been destroyed by explosives? It didn't evaporate into the 57th dimention, it all fell to the ground. There were likewise hundreds of photos taken of the ground zero site and of the wreckage, and not one photo showed any evidfence of explosives. They were all snapped like a twig, broken at the seams, or bent on ghastly angles before being torn like paper. Or were all the ground zero workers and photographers secret gov't disinformation agents?

It's an interesting make believe story, but it doesn't even remotely fit the facts.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 09:34 AM
link   
Thanks for the heads up, i cant wait to hear the debate.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 11:22 AM
link   

Originally posted by WWu777

Gage has already explained that in his 2 hour film "9/11 Blueprint for Truth". He covered how the explosives might have been planted, and the mysterious evacuations that took place in the WTC prior to 9/11.


I finished my own basement. Also my uncle is a demolition contractor.
The buildings have to be gutted prior to explosives detonating. Otherwise things like office furnature and staplers would go flying out of the windows like bullets.

"To further reduce flying debris, blasters may wrap chain-link fencing and geotextile fabric around each column. The fence keeps the large chunks of concrete from flying out, and the fabric catches most of the smaller bits. Blasters may also wrap fabric around the outside of each floor that is rigged with explosives. This acts as an extra net to contain any exploding concrete that tears through the material around each individual column. Structures surrounding the building may also be covered to protect them from flying debris and the pressure of the explosions. "

www.allaboutpadre.com...

"-- During a nine-week period earlier this year, the building was gutted of all internal elements down to the bar concrete shell to ensure that such materials would not be blown around the demolition site following the implosion."

Also demolishing 2 giant skyscrapers with explosives is not something that can be done overnight. It can't be done in a week. It can't be done in a month. It can't be done in 3 months. Even if you have a crew of 100 people working 8 hours per day.



Obviously you have not done your homework.


Go ask a demolition contractor if it would be possible to sneak a demolition of two giant skyscrapers like the twin towers. Ask them if there are silent explosives that can bring down the twin towers?



But even if there are questions he can't answer, so what? There are HUNDREDS of questions that the US government and puppets like you can't answer about 9/11 that CONTRADICT the official story as well. HUNDREDS!


How are you so sure you're not a puppet also? How are you so sure that the whole truther/debunker movements were not started via government propoganda to confused people?



Let's see you try to explain this one buster:
www.abovetopsecret.com...


911review.org...

I read several articles that the hijackers were enrolled in flight school.



1. Ok so why did the FBI ignore numerous warnings from its own agents and leads just before 9/11 that terrorist attacks were imminent?

2. Why did the hijackers get visas into the US so easily? And why was the US consulate agent told not to talk about the visas given to the hijackers or report it?

3. And why was Bin Laden's family safely flown out of the US when OBL was public enemy number one?


Even if the answers to every one of those questions was:

The government was in on it. (lets just assume that is the answer)

Those things have nothing to do with explosives in the twin towers. They more have to do with the government allowing the airplanes to hit the towers. So you believe the government allowed the airplanes to hit the towers AND demolished the towers with explosives?





This YouTuber put it eloquently:


Be carefull when you get most of your information from youtube. Next then you will believe that the beach boys and the beatles are satanists.



How come the mainstream media is too chicken# and controlled to cover all this?


They are not. Obviously you have not seen farenheit 9/11. Remember the mainstream media movie by michael moore that addresses many of the points that you bring up.

Again you are addressing points that the government may have been involved. (I believe they very well may have been) and not addressing points about how silent explosives were snuck into the twin towers.

Keep in mind that it was possible for the towers to have collapsed from airplanes and fire AND the goverment could have been involved.


[edit on 28-6-2010 by iamcpc]



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 07:17 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


I've said it before, but you should be a screenwriter. You're marvellous at making stuff up.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 08:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by iamcpc
The buildings have to be gutted prior to explosives detonating.

No they don't have to be gutted. You people keep assuming that whoever concocted 9/11 cared about life and property. They didn't.

Some buildings are gutted for safety concerns, but mainly so that nothing interferes with the way the building collapses. Most contractors want buildings to fall a certain way so as to not damage surrounding buildings.

The WTC collapses were not, okay? WERE NOT! typical demolitions where they cared about life and property. The goal was to bring the buildings down near the point of impact without regard for life and property. It was the "awe" factor after the shock of the planes impacting. 9/11 was the first "shock and awe" campaign.

Just because you think you know what happens in controlled demolitions and don't see it applied at the WTC, does not mean that the WTC's weren't brought down with explosives. The demolitions weren't typical, and the perps didn't care! Why is this concept so hard to comprehend?



Originally posted by iamcpc
and not addressing points about how silent explosives were snuck into the twin towers.

I don't know where you people come up with "silent" explosives. There was nothing "silent" about the collapses of any of the three WTC towers on 9/11. You must not have read the First Responder Oral Histories. Nor have you done enough research to know about the witnesses that heard the demolition sequences.

Further, who cares how they got explosives into the towers? You don't dismiss evidence just because you don't understand how it was accomplished. There was construction and other type of upgrade work being done at the WTC on a daily basis. People that worked at the WTC were accustomed to seeing workers coming in and out of the building all day, every day.



posted on Jun, 28 2010 @ 09:07 PM
link   
"Here's one- how about having him explain how these supernatural explosives that appeared out of nowhere, that noone could see, and left no evidence of any blast behind, got into the building to begin with."

And which authority was is it that tested for these explosives after the occurrence? Was it the FBI, the insurance carriers, the NYPD, the FDNY, the Port Authority Police Department, the New York State Police? Or...was it nobody? Kind of tough to find evidence when you deliberately fail to test for it and discard the evidence, don't you think?

"Based just off that event alone I think it's safe to say that anyone with fake employee ID's could have brought in whatever the heck they wanted and had access to roam freely."

Why would fake IDs even be needed for such an operation? All you need is everybody on side and on the same page. Two such guys were Port Authority Chariman Lewis Eisenberg and WTC Tenant Larry Silverstein.

"I wouldn't doubt it. When I visited the towers shortly after it was completed, security was almost nonexistant."

You're comparing security at the Towers in 1973 to twenty-five years later in 1998 (five years after the first alleged bombing)? OKaaaayyyyyy...

"That changed in 2003 after the first WTC bombing, when security was beefed up and ID cards were issued. They knew the towers had been targeted by terrorists and they knew they were going to hit it again."

Sorry, I don't recall the first WTC bombing happening in 2003. In fact, I don't even recall the Towers being around in 2003. Looks like somebody has burned out and needs to take a break from spreading propaganda. I told you keeping all those lies straight will end up affecting your mental functioning sooner or later.

[edit on 28-6-2010 by SphinxMontreal]




top topics



 
13
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join