In about two weeks Richard Gage, AIA, will debate journalist Rev. Chris Mohr. The question? What bro

[Stanchetalarooni]

http://ae911truth.org/en/news/41-articles/454-radio-debate.html

In this historic struggle to uncover and spread awareness of the truth regarding 9/11, a resounding call has been made for respectful, reasoned debate. Unfortunately, it has been difficult to find defenders of the official story who will acknowledge in a scientific and sincere manner the troubling forensic evidence that we present. The officials at NIST who put forth the government sponsored story should be willing to defend it in debate, but they are not. So, we are pleased that a clearly sincere, amicable, dynamic speaker is willing to oppose us in what promises to be a debate of a refreshingly different character.

Gage noted, “I’m looking forward to debating someone who has an open mind and is respectful of our position, yet who firmly believes that the twin towers were brought down by a “natural collapse” due to fire and jet planes. I expect a lively, intriguing debate that promises to emerge as one of the most productive public discussions of 9/11 to date. Chris has already shown himself to be a formidable opponent and I eagerly await a congenial conversation with him of a kind that NIST officials have not granted us."



http://ae911truth.org/en/news/41-articles/454-radio-debate.html

[Make7]

1. Well, I hope he comes up with a better demonstration than this one:

 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hFVi4qbN2jM
 

[LARED]

2. There is a reason no qualified individual is

willing to debate Gage. Gage's arguments are sophistic in nature and based on speculation and badly understood scientific principles. It is not surprising in my view that no one in the real science community would be willing to engage this huckster.

[Stanchetalarooni]

3. 1,449 don't feel the need to debate each other.

http://www.ae911truth.org/

1,449 verified architectural and engineering professionals and 11,333 other supporters
have signed the petition demanding of Congress a truly independent investigation.

That is a fairly large concensus within that population.
Check the site. Check the credentials of who has signed the petition.

http://www.ae911truth.org/

[LARED]

11. I took the time to look a a few dozen profiles.again

I am left pretty much unimpressed.

[OnTheOtherHand]

18. "Today there are thousands of scientists who are creationists..."

Today there are thousands of scientists who are creationists and who repudiate any form of evolution in their analysis and use of scientific data. Creationist scientists can now be found in literally every discipline of science and their numbers are increasing rapidly. In the Creation Research Society (2717 Cranbrook Rd., Ann Arbor, MI 48104) alone there are over 650 scientist members with either doctor's or master's degrees in some field of natural science. Among the additional 2,000 + sustaining members of the Society, many are also scientists with bachelor's degrees, in addition to numerous social scientists and other highly educated people with postgraduate degrees in their own fields. Evolutionists are finding it increasingly difficult to maintain the fiction that evolution is "science" and creation is "religion." When news media personnel and others make such statements today, they merely reveal their own liberal social philosophies—-not their awareness of scientific facts!

The ICR Scientists, by Henry Morris, Ph.D. (August 1980)

Of course, we've moved on from there....

Since Discovery Institute first published its Statement of Dissent from Darwin in 2001, more than 600 scientists have courageously stepped forward and signed onto a growing list of scientists of all disciplines voicing their skepticism over the central tenets of Darwin's theory of evolution....

"Top Questions," Center for Science and Culture, Discovery Institute

Now, if you try it the other way -- if you try to figure out who the best biologists and other scientists are, and then inquire into their opinions about evolution -- I think you'll find that the balance of opinion weighs heavily in the other direction. But, hey, I could be wrong, and I'm just some guy on the internet. If you're genuinely curious, I guess you will investigate for yourself.

Now, as a matter of science, the events of September 11, 2001 are much less significant than evolutionary theory. It would be hard for a biologist (or a paleontologist, or...) not to have an opinion on evolution, but I would guess that there are still many structural engineers who have never thought about the collapse of WTC 7. That said, the sociology of the "debate" seems pretty similar. A handful of groups boast about their growing numbers of highly qualified people who challenge the mainstream view. But if one steps back, one might consider that if their view was the mainstream view, they wouldn't have to boast about challenging it.

I understand the psychological attraction of highly selective appeals to authority. I even accept that it's logically possible that most (biologists) (climate scientists) (doctors) (structural engineers) (_____) simply refuse to face the plain facts about the flaws in (evolutionary theory) (global warming theory) (the MMR vaccine) (tbe Official Story of 9/11) (_____). Heck, I love it when underdogs win. But when I see Richard Gage dropping one cardboard box on a taller cardboard box as if he were demonstrating something about the physics of 9/11, I think, "Wow, that's bullshit." Don't you? Don't you seriously wonder about the credibility of an organization whose founder thought that was a good argument?

One more point worth considering: what does it really mean to sign a petition that calls for a "truly independent investigation"? Heck, one might argue -- I think I've seen it argued here -- that no decent person could possibly oppose a "truly independent investigation." But if that's true, then wouldn't it be strange to argue that it has anything to do with giving credence to controlled demolition theories? It's hard for me to follow the goalposts.

I find the sociology fascinating, but at some point one does have to look at the arguments. I've spent many hours hacking through people's arguments that the collapse of WTC 1/2/7 is highly suspicious, and I haven't found them persuasive. To be honest, I haven't found much evidence that most of the people who cite the arguments find them persuasive; many of them seem to have formed their opinions on other grounds. There are some genuinely curious and skeptical people who are interested, e.g., in the therm*te hypothesis, and when they put time into evaluating the details, I respect them for that contribution to discussion.

[BeFree]

4. Would be a first, eh?

Heck, even the NIST is so scared of its report that the NIST expressly forbid the NIST report from being used in a court of law.

And when you research who compiled it and the timeframe it was compiled in, the NIST was very wise to want to keep it out of court.

Anyway, saw a NASA video about Solid Rocket Propellant being burned in an open area.
The guys lighting it up had a cardboard box full of chunks of the SRP. They took a chunk out and set a torch to it and that stuff burned like crazy. They even said it would burn right through steel.

A cardboard box full of the SRP!! So, it can easily be moved around, piled up, tossed and turned, with no problem. But add a bit of heat and WATCH OUT DUDE!!

So.... a few chunks of that placed around a few steel columns and in a few minutes, steel is cut in two?

[Make7]

5. So who compiled it and what was the timeframe it was compiled in? ( n/t )

[BeFree]

6. Really, you don't know?

Or are you just going after me? You know I can back it up.

But really, I'd be wasting my time with you. However, make a bet and I'll consider showing you who was hired to compile it and the timeframe in which it was compiled.

First off, answer this: How many months after 9/11 was it before NIST got on the case officially?
Do you have a clue?

[Make7]

7. RE: "You know I can back it up."

No, I don't know that - which is why I asked. Feel free to not respond if you can't back it up.
 

[BeFree]

8. So

You don't know about the beginnings of the NIST report? Yes, or no?

If yes: How many months? If no, then you are asking a favor of me to respond further, right?

[Make7]

9. I'm just asking you to clarify something you wrote in the first post I replied to.

 

BeFree wrote:

... when you research who compiled [the NIST report] and the timeframe it was compiled in, the NIST was very wise to want to keep it out of court.

If you are unwilling (or unable) to clarify who you believe compiled it and what the timeframe was, I would consider it a favor if you simply not respond any further.

Thanks.
 

[BeFree]

12. Sure

Response: Go search the archives.

The NIST is a friggin joke. And you know it. Go ahead and search, like you do when you pull up that fantastic thread of mine.

You are not here for a discussion so don't play that stupid fucking game with me. You lose every time. Like here with your lame ass 'questions' and never a straight answer.

It was over 9 months after 9/11 before NIST was put on the case. 9 months. What a gawd damn crock of shit, eh? 9 months after the crime and bushco finally gets around to an investigation , and that makes you proud?

And they hired contractors to compile the lame ass report that can't be used in court.

And it took several years before the report was complete. 4 or 5 years.

And now they run from Gage and all the other researchers and this all makes you proud to ask your stupid ass lame questions?

[zappaman]

13. heh

7. Address the argument instead of attacking the person making the argument.

http://www.democraticunderground.com//discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=277126&mesg_id=277126

heh.

[OnTheOtherHand]

14. SRSLY?

So, you're saying that NIST didn't want the report to be cited in a lawsuit because it spent "4 or 5 years" working on it? and so "the NIST expressly forbid (sic) the NIST report from being used in a court of law"? Really? And NIST has the power to do that, umm, how?

Are you aware that the following language was enacted into U.S. law in 1985?

The National Bureau of Standards, on its own initiative but only after consultation with local authorities, may initiate and conduct investigations to determine the causes of structural failures in structures which are used or occupied by the general public. No part of any report resulting from such investigation shall be admitted as evidence or used in any suit or action for damages arising out of any matter mentioned in such report.

That section has been amended twice: once in 1988 to change the name from "National Bureau of Standards" to "National Institute of Standards and Technology," and once in October 2002, under the National Construction Safety Team Act, to extend the restriction to investigations under that act. That gives us:

The National Institute of Standards and Technology, on its own initiative but only after consultation with local authorities, may initiate and conduct investigations to determine the causes of structural failures in structures which are used or occupied by the general public. No part of any report resulting from such investigation, or from an investigation under the National Construction Safety Team Act <15 U.S.C. 7301 et seq.>, shall be admitted as evidence or used in any suit or action for damages arising out of any matter mentioned in such report.

U.S. Code
notes

Now, the NIST investigation apparently began before the National Construction Safety Team Act was even passed, so I doubt that the 2002 amendment made any real difference. On its face, it is a commonsensical extension of the 1985 law. But even if you think that the NCSTA (which you might want to read before you opine) is part of the cover-up, I'm verrrrry curious to see how you're going to pin it on NIST.

[BeFree]

15. Yes. Thank you

You backed up my claim that the NIST WTC report can't be used in court.

But the real question is why is the NIST so afraid of Gage, et al, that they run and hide from him?

And in the larger scheme, how is it that people are so willing to allow such a flimsy investigation?
Not only allow, but try to defend such an utterly decrepit attempt to hide the facts?

[OnTheOtherHand]

20. actually, that's incorrect

First, you are misstating your own claim. I quoted it; that might help. (Yes, I did anticipate that you would misstate your own claim even if I quoted it.)

Second, for what it's worth, the law doesn't state that the report "can't be used in court." It says that NIST reports can't be used "in any suit or action for damages."

...why is the NIST so afraid of Gage, et al, that they run and hide from him?

To reframe an excellent point made here recently: why is Barack Obama so afraid of Orly Taitz, et al.?

He isn't. Doh.

[BeFree]

22. Cool

You made your point and it confirms what I claimed. The NIST report can't be used in court even if a citizen wants to use it to sue for damages. Basically, it is worthless... just PR for bushco.

We all (most all) know that and now you've confirmed that fact.

Why won't NIST answer Gage's questions? Because they don't have too!!

How in the world could NIST be forced to answer the questions? Any ideas?

[OnTheOtherHand]

25. still misrepresenting your own claim

Ah, BeFree, BeFree... number 5, man, number 5! You don't have to spend your entire life in fear.

:shrug:

[BeFree]

26. Actually

I am misrepresenting your claim. Just by agreeing with you:
The NIST report is unusable in a court of law.

That is what you claimed. Right?
Now you're just confused? What rule does that fall under?

[BeFree]

37. Hey! Over here, OTOH

Why run away and slam me somewhere else?

Either the NIST is usable in court or it is not. I say not, you say not.

It's not usable in court. So WTF, DUDE?

[OnTheOtherHand]

40. huh?

Can you not read, DUDE?

[BeFree]

41. huh?

OTOH, seriously dude, you don't have to spend your entire life in fear.
It's ok to respond with something approaching an intelligent response, unlike your last two posts.

True, you really have nothing to add.
It's a tough spot to be in defending the OCT, it is worthless crap.

And, yes, we agree, the NIST report can't be used in court, right?

[OnTheOtherHand]

42. ROFL

Don't ever change, BeFree. If you admitted even your most obvious mistakes, you might actually be a credible advocate for... well, whatever it is you're advocating for.

[Make7]

24. Isn't a new investigation the goal of AE9/11Truth?

I'll have to assume that is also one of your goals.

So if you believe the NIST using outside experts, starting their investigation after too much time has passed, and taking four or five years to complete somehow delegitimizes their report then what exactly would that say about any new investigation?

Is there an organization that you have in mind to conduct an investigation that would not require the assistance of outside experts? Is it not prudent to have other people review the work being done regardless?

You seem to think getting around to an investigation after more than nine months somehow makes it less valid - how about an investigation that begins after more than nine years? Wouldn't your reservations only be magnified by such a timeframe?

Hypothetically speaking, if the results of any new investigation were allowed to be used in a court of law, do you think people/organizations might be less willing to cooperate if there was any potential for liability claims against them? Given which people/organizations that might include, would you be confident that a new investigation would take less than four or five years? And if it took as long, or longer than the NIST investigation then would we need yet another investigation that conformed more closely to your acceptable timeframe even if you agreed with its findings?

I ask these questions because your current position seems to undermine the usefulness of what I believe one of your goals to be - a new investigation. Perhaps you can clarify how is doesn't.

Thanks.

[Make7]

38. BeFree, thank you for not responding to my last post with your usual nonsense.

If you are not going to answer what are arguably valid questions then it is probably best that you simply refrain from responding at all. So thank you for at least that much.
 

[zappaman]

10. Number 4

If you can't answer the simple question posed to you in regards to your assertion...

http://www.democraticunderground.com//discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=277126&mesg_id=277126

[Bolo Boffin]

16. You do know why the NIST report is inadmissable in court, don't you?

And it has nothing to do with NIST being afraid of it.

Please stop making up contemptible bullshit.

[BeFree]

17. I think I do

It is because the law makes it so?

What the NIST is afraid of is Gage, et al, who dare to question the NIST.
Why are they afraid to be questioned? Nothing they do seems to be admissible.
What does the NIST have to lose?

And if the NIST can't be used as evidence, then why do so many claim it to be evidence?

[Bolo Boffin]

19. Perhaps you do, and you sit around making up this contemptible bullshit for your own amusement.

And perhaps you don't.

NIST's report is inadmissible in court because if it had been, they would not have gotten the cooperation they received from the various people involved in building the WTC buildings. If someone wishes to sue the Port Authority or anyone else, they have to come up with their own study.

NIST is not afraid of being questioned. The idea that they are is more of your contemptible bullshit. The difference between being admissible in court and being used as evidence in discussion should be plain to anyone who actually wants to understand what happened that day.

[BeFree]

21. so

Then the NIST is gonna sit down and talk with Gage, et al and openly discuss the matter?

Is it really consensus that the NIST report is complete and covers every aspect of the 3 towers demolition? I don't think so, and as far as I know NIST is not willing to delve in further but just claim: case closed.

Well, guess what? The case is far from being closed.

Furthermore, if you have evidence that NIST is open to having Gage, et al, find answers through the NIST now would be a good time to post such a thing.

[Bolo Boffin]

23. NIST accepted Gage's comments and included them in the report.

They've answered questions. It's not their problem that Gage doesn't accept the answer.

[BeFree]

27. I know, Bolo

You think the case is closed.

And there are those of us who think it needs to be opened and discussed.

Case closed.

[BeFree]

28. Ya know, bolo

You are not being very nice using such terminology.

I can't help but think that you use such contemptible language as a way to assuage your feeling that your case is shrinking. Shrinking much like that wicked witch that got water thrown on her.

No, not calling you the wicked witch. Lighten up. It's your case that is shrinking.
And that after all your hard work. Almost a shame.

[OnTheOtherHand]

29. I can't help but think that you're projecting

Nice try, however.

[zappaman]

30. heh

Pot...meet kettle!
:rofl:

[BeFree]

31. Woof!!

Bwahahaha!

[Bolo Boffin]

32. Oh, believe me, calling what it is you do here "contemptible bullshit" is being very nice. n/t

[BeFree]

33. Thanks, bolo

Coming from you, I take it as a compliment and an affirmation of success.

Woof, Woof!

[Name removed]

34. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[OnTheOtherHand]

35. ?!

I don't know the basis of your concern, but Bolo has put more time into researching and documenting his arguments than the vast majority of DU contributors. Whether one agrees or disagrees with his conclusions, he certainly gives people material to work with.

I don't keep files on people, but my impression is that when people bring factual corrections, he makes them, and when people bring well-reasoned differences in opinion, good discussions can ensue. Someone may have caught Bolo in a blunder, but I find it unlikely that anyone caught him "red handed making shit up."

I'm not sure what DU rules allow me to say next. But I probably can say that I'm not very impressed that BeFree claimed, above, that NIST forbade the use of its 9/11 report in court, and won't even admit that he claimed it even though we all can read the claim. I would be surprised if almost any other poster on this forum, regardless of his or her views about 9/11, behaved that way.

[Bolo Boffin]

36. The "shit Bolo got caught red-handed making up"

One time I said that an article's original title (which was long) wouldn't fit in the DU title window. I hadn't checked. I just assumed that it would and said that it would. Ghost checked and it actually did fit.

That's the "shit Bolo got caught red-handed making up." I shit you not.

ETA: Oh, wait, there's something else that has infuriated Ghost. One time I said that a body of water was a certain distance from the Shanksville crater. I was basing this on a picture, but the body of water in the picture was not the one I thought it was. When it was pointed out, I admitted it. For these two sins, Ghost will never forgive me.

[OnTheOtherHand]

39. ahhhh

Yeah, that first thing -- I've been surprised more than once by how much I can squeeze into a subject line, well beyond the width allocated in the GUI box.

Well, Ghost wouldn't be the first to fall into the Fundamental Attribution Error.