Richard Gage demands a better income.

Discussion in '9/11' started by Hannibal, Jul 15, 2011.

  1. 9/11 was an inside job

    9/11 was an inside job Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2011
    Messages:
    6,492
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    63
    He also fails to mention that cheney and Bush profited in the millions from 9/11 and that 9/11 has cost gage his marriage to his wife because he wisely found that this is more important.
     
  2. 9/11 was an inside job

    9/11 was an inside job Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2011
    Messages:
    6,492
    Likes Received:
    102
    Trophy Points:
    63
    i love his constant lies that the 9/11 commission is bullet proof even though he gets taken to the cleaners everyday on this.:mrgreen::-D
     
  3. BullsLawDan

    BullsLawDan New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,724
    Likes Received:
    97
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Go ahead and make one. I suspect it's at least as relevant.
     
  4. Sadistic-Savior

    Sadistic-Savior New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2004
    Messages:
    32,931
    Likes Received:
    89
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Ok...if you insist:


    Did you hear about the new car being manufactured in San Francisco?
    It's called the "Hamster", the only problem is that it's difficult
    to get it out of "Gere".

    Did you hear that Richard Gere visited the hospital AGAIN?
    He had to have a mole removed.
     
  5. happy fun dude

    happy fun dude New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,501
    Likes Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    0
    No, through MUTUAL negotiations they asked for the publishing rights and struck a deal with the commission, because they KNEW such a book, as written, would sell.. They asked to publish THAT report, NOT a book full of ampersands.. Your argument here is silly. They didn't make money off the government as a contractor, they made the money off the book sales as an independent publisher. They were the ones given the rights to sell the book. After they asked to sell it and won the rights to. And they sold it! And they made a FORTUNE...

    If you found one of THEM on the beach, sipping a pina colada, funded by selling half truths as non fiction, how is that different than Gage doing the same thing?

    You seem to have a bad habit of reading words that were never there; now you've done it again.

    He doesn't blame accuse ANY particular individuals of putting bombs there. He's really arguing THAT the bombs were there, NOT who placed them.

    Your going on about he must be accusing the same IRS guys who he gives his tax return to as being the ones to wire up the buildings is as per usual more baseless extrapolation.
     
  6. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I have yet to find them doing 'the same thing'. Do you have evidence of 'them' on a beach somewhere? (With or without Pina Coladas?

    Gage isn't selling half-truths. He's selling no-truths.
     
  7. BullsLawDan

    BullsLawDan New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,724
    Likes Received:
    97
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't see your evidence for any of this.
    Simple answer? Half truths would be 50% more truth than Gage publishes.
    LOL... And does he argue, then, that Muslim terrorists placed them there?

    Of course not. Stop parsing nonsense. He argues, of course, that the government was "behind" 9/11.
    It's the same government.

    The basic stupidity is this: He is alive. He freely publishes his "work". He speaks. He's a public figure.

    Why? If this conspiracy has already killed more than 3,000 Americans, and gotten off scot-free, why do they let him live?
     
  8. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0


    Gage must scare the bleep out of you. You sure worry about his daily activities routinely. So much time dedicate to him. He's worried....very worried.
     
  9. happy fun dude

    happy fun dude New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,501
    Likes Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I don't meaning that literally.. When I say laying on the beach sipping pina coladas, that is figurative language to represent enjoying lots of money. WW Norton are enjoying profits just like Gage, only MUCH bigger profits.

    They are both selling speculation, just the same.
     
  10. happy fun dude

    happy fun dude New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,501
    Likes Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    0
    What you need evidence that the decision for WW Norton to publish the 9/11 commission report was based on a mutual agreement?

    You think that WW Norton, a private commercial enterprise, was FORCED to publish it?

    That's YOUR claims, even if it were a book full of ampersands as you said, they would have STILL had to sell it at the orders of the government.. That was YOUR claim so YOU provide evidence.

    That is simply nonsense.. They weren't forced, they chose to publish it via mutual agreement.

    Hell you said yourself they were a "contractor"... So they have a contractual agreement to provide the publishing of the report but they are forced regardless the content?

    Nevertheless:

    "The commission said it chose Norton because the publisher submitted the best proposal, agreeing to sell the paperback version of the report for only $10."

    http://foundationcenter.org/pnd/news/story.jhtml?id=112300044

    So Gage's materials are 33.3% true?

    Sorry but the 9/11 commission report contains lots of speculation touted as fact no different than any Gage materials. End of story.

    I've not seen him ever argue about who placed them there, ergo I don't make arguments about who he thinks placed them there.

    Show me the most convincing quote of his where he says the government was "behind" 9/11. If he argues this, show me the argument.

    You'll have to prove the previous as it's a premise for this argument here.
     
  11. Hannibal

    Hannibal New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 17, 2009
    Messages:
    10,624
    Likes Received:
    13
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Can you show evidence of this claim, or are you speculating?
     
  12. candycorn

    candycorn New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,633
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Fellow shill HFD just called you a fool; you don't even read what your own caucus says...

    As for the "twoof movement" being more important than his marriage, that is a new low; even for you: not very funny either.

    [​IMG]
     
  13. NAB

    NAB Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2009
    Messages:
    1,821
    Likes Received:
    14
    Trophy Points:
    38

    Any chance that he may attempt to practice architecture in the future scares the hell out of me.

    You go Richard, make that bank and stay away from designing buildings please.
     
  14. BullsLawDan

    BullsLawDan New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,724
    Likes Received:
    97
    Trophy Points:
    0
    You're not getting it... unsurprisingly.

    How does this prove they cared about the content? How does this prove they made money off of the CONTENT of the report and wouldn't have made just as much as if the report said something else?

    You are implying that they made money because the report contained particular conclusions, when obviously that's untrue. They had a government contract. They fulfilled the government contract.

    As I said, if the government put out a bid request to publish 500 pages of ampersands, some contractor would do it.
    And yet I've asked you to provide that "speculation", and you haven't done so.
    LOL... Ok.
    He thinks thermite was used in the "demolition" and acknowledges that the type of thermite supposedly used was only made in the most sophisticated defense labrotories.

    What do you think he's arguing, that Al-Queda hires defense contractors?
    Do you deny he thinks "someone" is involved in attacks to kill 3,000 Americans? Do you deny he thinks the explanation of attacks thus far is inaccurate?

    If he does think that, the premise is made: If he was really espousing "the truth", why would this "someone" allow him to live and possibly expose themselves to capture, when they could just "disappear" him like they did already with thousands of others in the attacks?
     
  15. happy fun dude

    happy fun dude New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,501
    Likes Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It was in the link I already just posted.

    They sold a million copies in the first year alone.. These commission report books flew off the shelves a bit more successfully than literary works from Gage, naturally they probably made a slight bit more money. At eight bucks a pop, well you do the math.. Compare that to the numbers you posted about how much ill-gotten conjecture propegating cash that Gage has been raking in, and well you should see it's at least a wee slight bit higher.
     
  16. happy fun dude

    happy fun dude New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,501
    Likes Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Lying per usual.. Show us the quote that wasn't read.
     
  17. happy fun dude

    happy fun dude New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,501
    Likes Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    0
    They can rake in profit regardless what it says, the fact is in THIS universe, the report is NOT written in ampersands, it contains an in depth narrative based on conjecture, and THAT is being sold to the tune of millions worth of profit.

    There's nothing for ME to prove about what the content may or may not have been if it weren't what is actually there, and how that would even change anything anyway, so if anything you going down this diversionary tangeant about ampersand books or whatever then if anything it would be something for YOU to prove.. Don't bother though.. I don't think you'll convince anyone that WW Norton was expecting anything OTHER than what they imagined would be the earnest final report of the commission's many months of hard work, when they put in the request to publish it.

    I implied? Is this another case of "in other words"? What I CLEARLY said was that they were selling a report containing speculative narration as fact and profiting from it.. Whether they had a CONTRACT to do this or not doesn't change the fact that they are making lots of money selling speculation as fact, little different to what Gage is doing.

    When was this? I'm pretty sure I answer that question wherever I see it, so I think you've just missed the many times I've answered this before on this site.

    The baseless speculation is the following:

    5. AL QAEDA AIMS AT THE AMERICAN HOMELAND 145
    5.1 Terrorist Entrepreneurs 145
    5.2 The "Planes Operation" 153
    5.3 The Hamburg Contingent 160
    5.4 A Money Trail? 169

    7. THE ATTACK LOOMS 215
    7.1 First Arrivals in California 215
    7.2 The 9/11 Pilots in the United States 223
    7.3 Assembling the Teams 231
    7.4 Final Strategies and Tactics 241

    Basically the IMPORTANT stuff in any inquiry into a mass murder, that is who dunnit and how.. Plotting, funding etc.

    As you will see from very obvious disclaimers, along with a glimpse of the associated bibleography, you will find this is based on what the CIA claimed that their tortured detainees said having never been able to see records of it let alone the detainees.. CIA heresay.. Of what the sleep deprived detainees allegedly said even though they destroyed the tapes against commission requests and court orders not to.

    Really? I leave it to other people to make their own arguments rather than make up arguments that they never even said like you always do and you want to roll your eyes about that?

    Defense contractors are private corporations, not the government. So wouldn't this come closer to blaming NON-governmental entities?

    What do you think he's arguing, you ask me? I've asked you multiple times now for the quote of what he ACTUALLY is arguing and you don't show me, just YOUR OWN words (good habit of yours) and base my conception of his argument based on YOUR words not his?

    No.. Not those things.

    No he didn't.. That's a different premise.. I agree with that different premise.. You said he said the GOVERNMENT, the same guys who have his information NOW, were who he claimed were behind it.. Not "someone" but a SPECIFIC entity and yes obviously he wants a new investigation.

    It depends who this "someone" is.. Maybe he's not scared! Ever think of that? Alternate possiblity to the one you insist is the case.. Maybe he wants to be a martyr.. First amendment warrior. Maybe he's seen the Janitor Willy guy and Alex Jones etc. making a whole lot more specific, and serious, allegations against the U.S. government than the one he allegedly makes according to you and noticed they aren't getting picked off by navy Seals and so feels relatively secure in filing his paperwork. Maybe he wants to dot all the i's and cross the t's for the IRS because he doesn't want to get done for fraud or whatever and therefore screw his credibility.. Or maybe the oppositte, he assumes with the IRS personnel and/or computers doing the tax paperwork on how ever many THOUSANDS of capitalistic entities every day, his wouldn't be immediatily forwarded to the domestic FBI/CIA hit squad because the government workers who stole thermite to blow up the twin towers (if he argued this) don't even WORK FOR the bloody IRS!!!! Did you ever think about any of THOSE possibilities? Care to refute them all to prove yours must be the sole winner?

    What is that anyway? That he doesn't actually believe the government was behind 9/11 and he's just saying it to make money? THAT is why he files his tax forms?
     
  18. BullsLawDan

    BullsLawDan New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,724
    Likes Received:
    97
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Hey! Finally, you get something right.
     
  19. happy fun dude

    happy fun dude New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,501
    Likes Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Yes I've nailed down your belief now.. Unfortunatily it's just conjecture.. Already addressed what's wrong with that in the previous post. So I guess we're done here!
     
  20. BullsLawDan

    BullsLawDan New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2010
    Messages:
    5,724
    Likes Received:
    97
    Trophy Points:
    0
    First: We've already shown how much money and fame Gage is getting from his lies, and he's only one of the many 9/11 denial leaders making money.

    Second: 9/11 denial is "just conjecture." So why would you have a problem when others do it?
     
  21. happy fun dude

    happy fun dude New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,501
    Likes Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    0
    And? As I said on MANY occasions, if someone wants to donate to them then it is their OWN choice and they can part with their money.. Why should I be mad about OTHER people naively losing THEIR money.. I'm not giving Gage money.

    I think buying bottled water is pretty stupid.. People pay for water! That is like the biggest snake oil scam industry around but I don't care, if other people want to be stupid enough to pay massive ammounts for their water.

    I have a fair bit of conjecture, theories, and speculation about 9/11.. The difference is, I don't claim it as solid fact when I've not got real evidence.. Just my belief.. People shouldn't do that.. It's what the official story people do all the time however. As far as Gage, I've not actually reviewed his content so I don't know about it but if it is unsubstantiated speculation sold as fact, this is wrong, but not bad enough to lose sleep over, certainly the 9/11 commission report publishers are making much MORE money than that doing the same thing.
     
  22. candycorn

    candycorn New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,633
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    Real facts are as follows:

    AA77 wreckage is found all over the Pentagon Lawn and inside the building
    AA77 was tracked to the site of the crash at the Pentagon
    AA77 was witnessed hitting the building
    AA77 passengers have never been heard from again
    AA77 passengers DNA was found at the scene
    AA77 had a wingspan wide enough to clip the light poles that were taken down

    Yet whackjob twoofers say there is "NO" proof that AA77 hit the building.

    This is why you're movement is a marginal laughing stock and thought of as a trollish bore.
     
  23. happy fun dude

    happy fun dude New Member

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2010
    Messages:
    10,501
    Likes Received:
    66
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I never said anything like that or disputed any of those facts.

    So why the hell are you replying to ME about this AA77 crap?

    I understand perfectly why.. It's a troll mentality.. You were backed into a corner having been exposed about the flaws in the 9/11 commission, even about "major points" as YOU identified them, but can't bounce back from that, not to mention the nonsense you spouted about KSM, you couldn't back it up, and about how "ridiculously easy" it would be for the CIA to get their hands on WMD's, plant them in Iraq, "find" them in Iraq, without being exposed and somehow managing to get the whole world to believe these weapons were Saddam's ALL just to gain poll position for the GOP.. Nope copped out as always.

    Can't come back about ANYTHING really, no fuel for a triumph but no decorum to bow out with dignity either, so in order to still get the last word, just feign victory where you've clearly lost, and now just cherrypick OTHER people's arguments, the easiest to refute, and throw THEM at me.

    Whatever gives you the last word and makes you feel better about yourself I suppose.

    Let's have a debate about evolution.. You say you believe it or something and I'll just say birds have a beak.. Then you'll say yeah but who cares we're talking about something important, and I'll just go "NOBODY CAN DISPROVE THAT BIRDS HAVE BEAKS". Then I'll come around everyday and just toot my own little horn, "still nobody's disproved that birds have beaks".. I WIN!

    No doubt you like to set the basketball hoop height up to midget proportions.. Understandable you don't feel you have what it takes to take on the real meat of the issue.

    In future, don't quote posts you have nothing to say about and pretend you're refuting something when you're not. Like when you bump threads you got defeated in, you only point out yet another strikeout.
     
  24. candycorn

    candycorn New Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2008
    Messages:
    2,633
    Likes Received:
    6
    Trophy Points:
    0
    I'll post whatever I want sonny.

    When you're right 100% of the times (or pretty darn close), you don't have to run from anybody or act like a chinchilla like you do. he he he.

    Your boys doubt AA77 hit the Pentagon. Why not try to straighten them out instead of messing with people who are way smarter than you?
     
  25. RtWngaFraud

    RtWngaFraud Banned

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2011
    Messages:
    20,420
    Likes Received:
    106
    Trophy Points:
    0


    Wreckage all over? Surely you'll post proof (besides that supposed AA style overgrown gum wrapper we've all seen a hundred times).
    NOBODY witnessed it "hitting the building". Lie.
    AA's wingspan is nonsense. Paper, rock, scissors. Kids can even tell the difference.
     

Share This Page