Up Close and Personal: Richard Gage of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Rumsfeld 2.3 trillion is a joke, I've debunked it at least 20 times. The entire remote control thing is ludicrous. How would the terrorists know where the offices of particular people are?

Put options is bull(*)(*)(*)(*), I've proven that to be false several times as well.

 

I think you're posting under the wrong account? Again?

Nevertheless, as I said, "I don't know anything about the remote-controlled theory."

A joke? How so? As in, he didn't mean that they couldn't account for $2.3 trillion dollars in transactions? So, what, exactly, have you debunked that counters what the Secretary of Defense said on September 10th, 2001? That the money for all those transactions was really there? If so, prove it.

As I said, "I don't necessarily agree with everything the chart says."

Anything else?

 

Keep your snide comments. Lefty and I don't post similar, and he has a lot more education, and overall knowledge than I do. I can't get close to his technical knowledge. Also, again? Really? I take you don't remember, or in true truther style want to ignore, the thread where I showed that Koko and 9/11 is an inside job, are the same person. Or that Scott and Holston are the same person, using purely truther requirements and investigation. Show me who my other sock was or save it.

That was just the few I saw at first Jango. All of those can be "debunked", but let's face it. You won't accept any of it anyway. You'll handwave it away, and repost it again in 2 months. After all, I've posted the information below, and cjnewsons's site on multiple occasions. You still trot that stuff out from time to time....e.g.

Yeah, he said it. The government was even saying it WAY before 9/11. In fact, some of it even traced back to the Clinton administration. I've linked to this several times. It says right in there that is was a tracking error, and 2/3's of it has been accounted for already. That was less than a year after 9/11, I assure you if I go digging I could find where the rest was. However, you'd tell me you aren't going to do my research...so I'm not going to do yours.

Then wtf is the point of even linking to it? Just to throw a huge chart out and have people stare at it. You said you don't agree with the far right, and you don't agree with the far left. Now you're saying that there are at least 2 things in the middle you don't agree with, and I showed that one of them has been debunked.

Why is it always that truthers have to waste a ton of time to get something done? Wouldn't it have been easier to just SAY what you believe so it can be debunked quickly, and efficiently? Instead you obfuscate things to make it as confusing as possible. That chart is garbage, and if you still believe the woo after 12 years then all the more props to you. Glad you can stick with something that is such a bold faced lie for so long. That's real dedication.

 

Some people even think that Margot and I are socks because we both share some of the same opinions on Africa, especially concerning Libya and the radical Muslim sects. We were in Libya in somewhat the same time frame, but that is about the only real connection.

It seems quite typical of CTist to think that theirs is the majority point of view and that there could only possibly be a small cabal of paid agents opposing them. And yet, on every forum I have seen, there are a number of CTist whom I have met elsewhere under different screen names posting on all of them from time to time to get around being banned, as well as to spam the boards. For all I know, Killtown and his nutcase buddy Swingdangler, aka Rmpl4skn may be here among now.

 

Jango, if you head over to this thread and follow the link to my blog re. American 77, the 2nd to bottom video I've posted there explains the $2.3T myth. As for all the 7 other claims, go visit Mike Williams at 911myths.com, he deals with them in great detail.

But briefly off the top of my head.

1. Warning to US were not 'very specific', and although the FBI, CIA etc all had their pieces of the puzzle, there was no coordination between them to enable any actionable intelligence.

2. Put options were investigated, the larger ones were done by a single broker, who placed puts on United Airlines stock as part of an investment scheme which involved BUYING 100,000 shares in American Airline stock a week before 9/11. Some foreknowledge...

3. Bush did not need to coordinate anything. You think the military need a go ahead from the president to do their job? Of course not. FAA/NORTHCOM recordings available show the military was doing all they could during the brief time they had to attempt to prevent anything. The fact Bush had to have a moment in a classroom before he made his was to AF1 bares no relevance at all to the military response on 9/11.

4. $2.3T was first announced in 2000 and had be known about since 1999, 2 years before Bush was elected. Most was recovered in 2002. The speech was never aimed at announcing they had lost anything, it was aimed at bringing light the technological gridlock/incompatibility withing the DOD. The link I talked about above has a video which deals with it further.

5. War games on 9/11 did nothing to 'confuse' the air defenses. It was evens stated that because everyone was getting into their places, their response was, if anything, better, and that the switch from sim to real world took a matter of seconds. If you have ever listened to the NEADS tapes, you would know this, but I'm assuming you have not.

6. NRO drill had nothing to do with hijacked planes crashing into anything. It was an accidental crash into one of their HQ. The drill was due to begin in the afternoon of 9/11, and involved the orderly evacuated on the buildings to test their ability to handle a situation like it. The drill was canceled and did not take place on 9/11.

7. Some fighters were moved to Canada for the war game simulating Russian bombers coming in over the arctic, however the normal level of 14 active standby was not below its normal level. The appropriate fighters were scrambles as quick as they were needed. Otis was scrambled at 0846, 9 minutes after NEADS first got world of any hijacking activity. Langley was scrambled at 0924. Toledo and Selfridge were also scrambled that morning. They simple did not have the time or intelligence to find, intercept, and follow/engage anything that morning, it was all over far too quick.

8. There is only one sign of 'fake blips' anywhere on the NEADS tapes, and from the sounds of it one can assume they had only been there for a few seconds before they were switched off. This occurred between UA175 hitting the South Tower and AA77 hitting the Pentagon. If NEADS were aware of AA77 heading towards DC at this stage, then I would be entitled to believe you somewhat, however NEADS had no idea of AA77 baring down on the capital at this stage. They did not know until about 30 seconds before AA77 hit the Pentagon. Again, if you ever listen to the NEADS tapes, you will understand exactly what I am talking about.

 

Awe. I hit a nerve? It's funny how the people that are accused or thought of being "not who they say they are" or "having multiple accounts" get so razor. You tell us that you don't care what we think, but you will argue endlessly against what we think. Unless it is political, or about the Jewish/Israeli people (I suspect).

I'm about the only human being here willing to make concessions. That is, remarkably, a talent that no one on your side possesses. Least I forget "my compatriots", before you'd be back at my throat with a verbal knife, just like Patriot was fond of.

Acknowledged, on the lame duck-out, and, on the crappy source. How about using something respectable? Not your woo. Seriously. Your sources suck. You (*)(*)(*)(*)(*) and moan when someone posts a source from the truther antithesis of that. Such out in the open hypocrisy with you.

Oh look, incredulity.

I've told you what I believe. You don't care. I've shown you "A Clean Break" - you don't care. Too political, thus, you don't care. So why you do waste your time trying to mock me when you're the one not willing to engage in communication here? Must your username represent you so candidly.

 

He doesn't care because "A Clean Break" is simply your suspected motive.

There are lots of possible motives for any given crime.

If your wife dies in an automobile accident should the police assume you paid a suicide a drunk driver to take her out because you benefited from an insurance policy? That's pretty much what you're suggesting the government did here...

 

So you portend that "A Clean Break" didn't motivate our leaders? Clearly then, you have evidence of that? That we didn't implement it in with the War on Terrorism.

 

I'm saying a motive is not the only thing you need in order to establish wrongdoing. You have a motive for all manner of wrongdoing, yet you refrain from wrongdoing. Why is that?

 

So you portend that "A Clean Break" didn't motivate our leaders?

 

Motivate them all you want, they are not going to have the brain power to pull it off.

Cheney? Rummy? Bush the Lesser?

Yeah, real crowd of brainiacs there.

 

What's the communication issue here? I answered your question.

And you're using the word portend incorrectly.

Correct grammar would be; "What does A Clean Break policy portend for the policy of the Bush Administration?" The answer is, "It would be a mistake to assume that A Clean Break portends an American attack on itself."

In your usage, the verb "portend" modifies the pronoun "you."

Did you really mean to type that I am an omen that a clean break didn't motivate our leaders?

 

You think you hit a nerve because I told you to either put up or shut up? I don't care what you think, and I argue against you because the people that died that day deserve more than the truth movements conjecture and lies. You're right though, the more political, the less I care. As far as Jewish and Israeli, that's just ignorant hate for a culture of people. Why would I acknowledge that? You guys do a good job of it all by yourselves.

Yeah, you seem to say that a lot, but I've never actually seen you make a concession. Unless by concession you mean you throw up a graph of lies and then pick out the extreme woo from the "believable" woo. I've never hold a verbal knife to anything you've said, but I have been known to destroy your theories from time to time.

It's a crappy source because it destroys your little theory. How is that source not respectable? Not only does it source MULTIPLE separate sources, which you would have noticed had you actually read through it, but it provides absolutely factual information. Truther sites source only other truther sites, that is it. Which is also why I (*)(*)(*)(*)(*). If my sources suck than you should have no problem tearing them down like I do to yours? Go ahead, "debunk" that source. Show me that it's not credible, like I do to yours, and I will gladly stop using it. Until then, just because you don't like my sources doesn't make them non-factual.

Do you know what incredulity means? My quote was:

How does any of that make me in a state of being unwilling or unable to believe something? I am able to believe anything, and I am open minded enough to do it. I don't think you meant incredulity there, try another word maybe?

I also don't think you know what communication is, as we are communicating right now. That's what this is. I don't just feel it's too political, I also feel it's irrelevant. It's kind of a 2-for. I don't feel you're a waste of time, Jango. You shouldn't be so hard on yourself. I have read through a clean break, if you can show exact evidence that proves A Clean Break is directly related to 9/11 (the event, not what happened afterwards. I've stated several times I know the government used 9/11 to their advantage. I mean link it so that you can prove the government either LIHOP or MIHOP to take advantage of A Clean Break) then I will discuss it. However, you've never done anything more the make loose connections.