Gage finally gets something right

[The Big Dog]

Incompetent 9/11 researcher Richard Gage has "retracted" his endorsement of CIT's ridiculous flyover theory at the Pentagon. In language usually reserved for bitter breakups between jilted lovers, Gage at long last realizes that a plane did in fact hit the Pentagon, despite CIT's evidence showing... well, that a plane hit the Pentagon.

http://911blogger.com/news/2011-02-08/richard-gage-completely-withdraws-support-cit#comments

Richard Gage lent his name to a theory so ridiculous without conducting even basic research or understanding the basic principles of physics applicable. But this is not about his theory at Ground Zero.... hee hee.

One wonders whether other truthers who endorsed this particular No Planer Theory will likewise wake up in the near future.

 

[DGM]

Incompetent 9/11 researcher Richard Gage has "retracted" his endorsement of CIT's ridiculous flyover theory at the Pentagon. In language usually reserved for bitter breakups between jilted lovers, Gage at long last realizes that a plane did in fact hit the Pentagon, despite CIT's evidence showing... well, that a plane hit the Pentagon.

http://911blogger.com/news/2011-02-08/richard-gage-completely-withdraws-support-cit#comments

Richard Gage lent his name to a theory so ridiculous without conducting even basic research or understanding the basic principles of physics applicable. But this is not about his theory at Ground Zero.... hee hee.

One wonders whether other truthers who endorsed this particular No Planer Theory will likewise wake up in the near future.

This is "damage control" for Gage. He's trying to present himself as more rational.

 

[deeper]

One wonders whether other truthers who endorsed this particular No Planer Theory will likewise wake up in the near future.

I know he wasn't a No-Planer as such but dare I ask if this impacts Mobertermy's 'theory' at all?

 

[leftysergeant]

Even that dimbulb Hoffman provides some evidence against the NOC and fly-over crap. Gage links to him as a source for his new position.

This makes him a little bit brighter thasn most twoofers.

I still wouldn't hire him to build a privy at a hunting lodge.

 

[Quad4_72]

Must be some sort of scheme to get more money. The no plane at the Pentagon/flyover theory was too much woo for his reputation. He is attempting to legitimize himself but still maintain his twoofy following. Like they say, you never go full retard.

 

[Grizzly Bear]

It's nice to see that he recognized the shoddy investigative techniques of CIT, pity he can't apply the same critique to his own "research." I "hope" some day he comes to his senses in his other "beliefs" but whatever... I'm not counting on it

 

[Thunder]

I was also surprised to learn that 12 of the witnesses that CIT interviewed (including six witnesses to whom CIT refers to as north path witnesses) were in a position to see the Pentagon and all 12 stated that they saw the plane hit the Pentagon. It was clear from this that CIT used improper investigative methods. CIT used and presented only those portions of their witness reports which fit their conclusion. The preponderance of CIT’s own evidence in fact supports the conclusion that the plane impacted the Pentagon. (See Summary and Analysis of “National Security Alert” and other works listed below for these and many additional witness statements that describe the plane as clearly impacting the Pentagon).

Because of these concerns I provided new statements in December 2009 and January 2010 pointing out that my previous statement of support should not be interpreted as an endorsement of their conclusion that the airplane flew over the Pentagon. Despite these statements, CIT has continued to publish my original statement and characterize it as an endorsement of their flyover conclusion. I am hereby now on the record clearly as NOT supporting the CIT investigation at all. In addition, I insist that CIT delete my name from its web site in any and every context in which it might give the impression of support or endorsement of their efforts from me.


wow...Mr. Gage is actually acting like a true skeptic. I give him props for that.

 

[Telltale Tom]

I was also surprised to learn that 12 of the witnesses that CIT interviewed (including six witnesses to whom CIT refers to as north path witnesses) were in a position to see the Pentagon and all 12 stated that they saw the plane hit the Pentagon. It was clear from this that CIT used improper investigative methods. CIT used and presented only those portions of their witness reports which fit their conclusion. The preponderance of CIT’s own evidence in fact supports the conclusion that the plane impacted the Pentagon. (See Summary and Analysis of “National Security Alert” and other works listed below for these and many additional witness statements that describe the plane as clearly impacting the Pentagon).

Because of these concerns I provided new statements in December 2009 and January 2010 pointing out that my previous statement of support should not be interpreted as an endorsement of their conclusion that the airplane flew over the Pentagon. Despite these statements, CIT has continued to publish my original statement and characterize it as an endorsement of their flyover conclusion. I am hereby now on the record clearly as NOT supporting the CIT investigation at all. In addition, I insist that CIT delete my name from its web site in any and every context in which it might give the impression of support or endorsement of their efforts from me.

wow...Mr. Gage is actually acting like a true skeptic. I give him props for that.

Wow this is really bad news for ae911truth. Our whole theory is based on recording what people say rather than what they have subsequently clarified. Its very dangerous ground for us Richard and I strongly advise against it.

Next we will be recording what Les Robertson thinks about molten steel or what our demo expert Danny Jowenka says about WTC 1 and 2.

Our whole organization is based on recording people views at one point in time. Particularly our petition is based on what people thought several years ago and we never update it.

 

[grandmastershek]

Our whole organization is based on recording people views at one point in time. Particularly our petition is based on what people thought several years ago and we never update it.

This is a good point. Perhaps a forum project (split the names up) can be done where signers are contacted and their support clarified via questionnaire.

 

[Quad4_72]

Wow this is really bad news for ae911truth. Our whole theory is based on recording what people say rather than what they have subsequently clarified. Its very dangerous ground for us Richard and I strongly advise against it.

Next we will be recording what Les Robertson thinks about molten steel or what our demo expert Danny Jowenka says about WTC 1 and 2.

Our whole organization is based on recording people views at one point in time. Particularly our petition is based on what people thought several years ago and we never update it.

I <3 Telltale Tom.

 

[Telltale Tom]

Poor Richard, he is so misunderstood.

When he said, 18 months ago, that it was the truth that there was no evidence that a plane hit the Pentagon, then of course we had to believe it. We don't like to qualify our truths here at ae911truth.

As John Maynard Keynes, father of Keynesian Economics, once said: “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” A similar evolution ocurred in relation to Richard's view of CIT’s work.

While it was a bit dissappointing that Richard was tricked by these sneaky folks at CIT, who didnt tell him that the eye witnesses saw the plane crash into the pentagon. It was a bit dissappointing that he didnt notice the pics of the plane debris.

Oh well, as Richard says, the truth will change as the facts change.

May the truth be with you.

 

[jaydeehess]

Next we will be recording what Les Robertson thinks about molten steel ...........

Hmmm, Tom, waaay back when (In December) poster bill simth was touting an interview in which Gourley was saying they had Robertson saying specifically that he saw molten rivers or lakes or some such, on tape. bill assured me he would be posting that tape here and proving that Gourley was correct in his assurtion.

bill has fallen off the face of the planet so perhaps you can post it.

 

[jaydeehess]

I know he wasn't a No-Planer as such but dare I ask if this impacts Mobertermy's 'theory' at all?

Which made his earlier endorsement of the CiT rather odd since they are in fact no-planers. They say a plane approached the Pentagon but did not hit it.


On another note is it my imagination or are many 9/11 conspiracists moving ever closer to giving up?

We have Java Man saying that only a small number of devices designed to weaken the long span trusses in the towers would be required to initiate collapse after which gravity would finish the job and now Gage is moving away from the CiT and saying that a plane did hit the Pentagon.

 

[jaydeehess]

Poor Richard, he is so misunderstood.

When he said, 18 months ago, that it was the truth that there was no evidence that a plane hit the Pentagon, then of course we had to believe it. We don't like to qualify our truths here at ae911truth.

As John Maynard Keynes, father of Keynesian Economics, once said: “When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” A similar evolution ocurred in relation to Richard's view of CIT’s work.

While it was a bit dissappointing that Richard was tricked by these sneaky folks at CIT, who didnt tell him that the eye witnesses saw the plane crash into the pentagon. It was a bit dissappointing that he didnt notice the pics of the plane debris.

Oh well, as Richard says, the truth will change as the facts change.

May the truth be with you.

So what changed?

At this forum manyof us have known since CiT's day 1, and not been shy about saying it, that the CiT had every single witness of theirs who was in position to see impact saying that the plane indeed did impact.

Is Gage just reallllllllly sloooooowwww on the uptake?

 

[Telltale Tom]

Hmmm, Tom, waaay back when (In December) poster bill simth was touting an interview in which Gourley was saying they had Robertson saying specifically that he saw molten rivers or lakes or some such, on tape. bill assured me he would be posting that tape here and proving that Gourley was correct in his assurtion.

bill has fallen off the face of the planet so perhaps you can post it.

Oh I think Les did say that he saw red hot steel, and subsequently said that he couldn't remeber saying molten, and also said that he has often said that there is nothing to indicate CD and that ae911truth are crazies.

Perhaps Les and Richard are the same and say different things after they have thought about it.

The only difference is that Richard, being head of the ae911truth, delivers the truth, and it takes him somewhat longer to make up his mind.

 

[sheeplesnshills]

rather than jumping to conclusions based on a skewed selection of evidence and argument, or being unduly influenced by any type of authority figure. Use your own discernment, based on your use of the scientific method to arrive at a coherent theory that you can confidently stand behind

Wheres that Irony meter when you need it

 

[Horatius]

wow...Mr. Gage is actually acting like a true skeptic. I give him props for that.

Actually, no, he's not, for just this reason:

Our whole theory is based on recording what people say rather than what they have subsequently clarified. Its very dangerous ground for us Richard and I strongly advise against it.

...

Our whole organization is based on recording people views at one point in time. Particularly our petition is based on what people thought several years ago and we never update it.

He's not being any more of skeptic than he ever has been. Let\s see him apply the same rules to his own BS, and then I'll give him props. Spotting other people's BS is easy, spotting your own BS is much harder.


In fact, I'm about to Stundie a couple of parts of that post.

 

[njslim]

Well he did get the date right.....?

 

[Orphia Nay]

Our whole organization is based on recording people views at one point in time. Particularly our petition is based on what people thought several years ago and we never update it.

This is a good point. Perhaps a forum project (split the names up) can be done where signers are contacted and their support clarified via questionnaire.

This ties in with something I've been thinking for a while. I just started a new thread:

http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=200674

 

[tsig]

So what changed?

At this forum manyof us have known since CiT's day 1, and not been shy about saying it, that the CiT had every single witness of theirs who was in position to see impact saying that the plane indeed did impact.

Is Gage just reallllllllly sloooooowwww on the uptake?

I base my present position also on a number of blogs, papers, and videos that have shed light on the Pentagon Flight 77 issues and on CIT’s work. These papers should be among those studied by anyone seeking the full truth about these matters. Most of these works analyze additional evidence and come to different conclusions than CIT does.