• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Richard Gage at the AIA Convention

Richard the G

Critical Thinker
R
Joined
Apr 9, 2012
Messages
253
In 2009 they got 50 signatures from 14,000 attendees. How many do you think he will get in Colorado
 
Hehe

Not many. A couple of dozend, if he is very effective and bold. His message is old news - and disproven news.

In February, a woman defaced a painting in France, a national treasure even ("Liberty leading the People" by Eugène Delacroix) with the letters "AE911", and speculation that this was a reference to "ae911truth.org" was printed in the national and international mainstream press, was probably read by a million and more people. It got ae911truth.org about 35,000 extra visitors, and perhaps 35 extra signatures (none of those an Architect or engineer).

So only about 1 in 1,000 people who stumbled across Gage's message felt compelled to sign.

If again 14,000 architects go to the convention, I guess only a fraction of those take notice of Gage's little booth. Shall we say 3,000? Sure enough, with the chance to make direct personal contact, Gage could persuade more than 1 in 1000, but I doubt he can appeal to more than 1 in 100, so couple of dozend is high-hanging fruit for him.


The AIA has 83,500+ members, so 1 in 6 of those goes to the convention? Wow. Gage's petition has just under 100 signatures with "AIA" in the title. So can we expect 1 in 6 of those to show up? 20 perhaps, 25 even (quite probably some signers don't flaunt their AIA membership in their petition profile)? It would be quite amazing if he were able to double the number of signers among the attendees. So hmmm I think a couple dozend new signatures is VERY high hanging fruits.


One dozend, max.
 
Last edited:
Oystein said:
Hehe

Not many. A couple of dozend, if he is very effective and bold. His message is old news - and disproven news.

In February, a woman defaced a painting in France, a national treasure even ("Liberty leading the People" by Eugène Delacroix) with the letters "AE911", and speculation that this was a reference to "ae911truth.org" was printed in the national and international mainstream press, was probably read by a million and more people. It got ae911truth.org about 35,000 extra visitors, and perhaps 35 extra signatures (none of those an Architect or engineer).

So only about 1 in 1,000 people who stumbled across Gage's message felt compelled to sign.

If again 14,000 architects go to the convention, I guess only a fraction of those take notice of Gage's little booth. Shall we say 3,000? Sure enough, with the chance to make direct personal contact, Gage could persuade more than 1 in 1000, but I doubt he can appeal to more than 1 in 100, so couple of dozend is high-hanging fruit for him.


The AIA has 83,500+ members, so 1 in 6 of those goes to the convention? Wow. Gage's petition has just under 100 signatures with "AIA" in the title. So can we expect 1 in 6 of those to show up? 20 perhaps, 25 even (quite probably some signers don't flaunt their AIA membership in their petition profile)? It would be quite amazing if he were able to double the number of signers among the attendees. So hmmm I think a couple dozend new signatures is VERY high hanging fruits.


One dozend, max.
Click to expand...

If he managed to get all 14000 to sign would that change your mind? or would he need all 83500+?..lol
How many would it take to make you take him seriously? He's got 1900 or so now..in some fields thats called a consensus..although as aristotle said, consensus does not mean you're right.
 
lexicon008 said:
If he managed to get all 14000 to sign would that change your mind? or would he need all 83500+?..lol
How many would it take to make you take him seriously? He's got 1900 or so now..in some fields thats called a consensus..although as aristotle said, consensus does not mean you're right.
Click to expand...

If 14,000 invisible pink unicorns descended from Heaven, it would convince me that invisible pink unicorns exist after all.

But that ain't gonna happen. :D

(Besides: No, it would not convince me, as I look at the evidence, not at the popularity. I know that Gage disseminates disinformation - many of his "facts" are simply not true. It would give me reason to reconsider, though.)


What if 14,000 architects take note of Gage, and not even 1 in 1,000 signs - would that convince YOU that the community of architects in the USA doesn't give any damn about that pony show, and that Gage represents a tiny, insiginifcant fringe which is simply WRONG and deluded?
 
Oystein said:
If 14,000 invisible pink unicorns descended from Heaven, it would convince me that invisible pink unicorns exist after all.

But that ain't gonna happen. :D

(Besides: No, it would not convince me, as I look at the evidence, not at the popularity. I know that Gage disseminates disinformation - many of his "facts" are simply not true. It would give me reason to reconsider, though.)


What if 14,000 architects take note of Gage, and not even 1 in 1,000 signs - would that convince YOU that the community of architects in the USA doesn't give any damn about that pony show, and that Gage represents a tiny, insiginifcant fringe which is simply WRONG and deluded?
Click to expand...

I would be convinced if all 14000 of those people put their name to paper and disputed his claims with convincing evidence. So far there are only a few dozen actual people who have opposed what he is saying and had the guts to put it in writing or on video. Why is that? If he and his followers are just fringe nut cases why not actively oppose him?
There are claims that the entire ASCE and such oppose it but there is no evidence that all of them were polled and signed anything documenting their opposition. Just because their organizational heads or public relation department claims that all agree is not proof that all agree. Just because people don't actively disagree or want to get involved does not mean they agree.
Just because 42% of voters didn't vote and therefore didn't vote for the losing candidate, it doesn't mean they support the winning candidate does it.

And yes you are right, Gage and others do present evidence that is suspect but that happens on both sides of the arguement.
 
DGM said:
What would you say if less than 1% supported the candidate (or issue)?
Click to expand...
that depends..did the other 99% actually vote? Did they put their name to paper? did they actually express an opinion and can you verify it?
 
lexicon008 said:
that depends..did the other 99% actually vote? Did they put their name to paper? did they actually express an opinion and can you verify it?
Click to expand...
Doesn't matter. Unless you are claiming they had no knowledge of the event. Is that what you claim? Did the vast majority of building professionals just miss this?

Sounds really stupid when you say it out-loud. ;)
 
lexicon008 said:
that depends..did the other 99% actually vote? Did they put their name to paper? did they actually express an opinion and can you verify it?
Click to expand...

Kiddo, Gage simply isn't worth the time it takes to do anything. His theories can be disproven by people not even in the field, in a matter of seconds. People IN the field?

Well, they just point and laugh. That's all Gage is worth.
 
Richard the G said:
In 2009 they got 50 signatures from 14,000 attendees. How many do you think he will get in Colorado
Click to expand...

Far, far fewer. How many of those attendees in '09 are also going to be in Colorado? I'd suggest quite a few. They certainly won't even give Gage a second look. The most in-depth conversation he'll get from anyone with a brain is in giving directions to the men's room.
 
lexicon008 said:
I would be convinced if all 14000 of those people put their name to paper and disputed his claims with convincing evidence. So far there are only a few dozen actual people who have opposed what he is saying and had the guts to put it in writing or on video. Why is that? If he and his followers are just fringe nut cases why not actively oppose him?
Click to expand...

The answer is in the question.

http://youtu.be/DHVVKAKWXcg?t=3m19s
 
Last edited:
Oystein said:
"If 14,000 invisible pink unicorns descended from Heaven, it would convince me that invisible pink unicorns exist after all."
Click to expand...

So much is lost by poor translation.

Oystein said:
"I know that Gage disseminates disinformation - many of his "facts" are simply not true."
Click to expand...
It is interesting that you do not declare a belief that all of Richard Gage's presentation is untrue.

Richard Gage presents his case to live audiences which have ample opportunity to question him regarding the accuracy of his information.

He has been presenting this evidence to audiences worldwide.

Richard Gage and A&E911 Truth's goal is a full investigation into 9/11.

No one questions that on 9/11 there was a mass murder at the WTC.

What 9/11 Truth is concerned about is the incompleteness of the government's previous investigation.

The government explanation for WTC7's freefall has been thoroughly debunked.

The 2009 Bentham paper finding that nanothermite permeates all of the 9/11 WTC dust, provided scientific evidence that tons of this steel-melting military material was planted prior to 9/11.

So how many truths are required to justify some concern on your part?

MM
 
Last edited:
DGM said:
Doesn't matter. Unless you are claiming they had no knowledge of the event. Is that what you claim? Did the vast majority of building professionals just miss this?

Sounds really stupid when you say it out-loud. ;)
Click to expand...

Did they miss it? Who knows, maybe they don't want to get involved. Maybe they want convincing hard proof right in front of their face. Maybe they wanna wait for an actual trial. Who knows.
What is known is that most if not all of people who even get involved in the debate and side even in the slightest against the official story get labelled.
You might as well have a neon sign over your head saying "nutcase conspiracy theorist" if you question anything about that day in some peoples eyes. They see people who have lost their jobs over it and maybe they like their house and car and don't wanna end up on welfare. Maybe they like their career. Maybe their hoping someone else will fix this and they won't need to. Maybe their waiting for a few hundred or thousand more people to stand beside. Maybe they don't want a label.
Some people just aren't willing to have that done to them when they don't have to.
 
lexicon008 said:
Did they miss it? Who knows, maybe they don't want to get involved. Maybe they want convincing hard proof right in front of their face. Maybe they wanna wait for an actual trial. Who knows.
What is known is that most if not all of people who even get involved in the debate and side even in the slightest against the official story get labelled.
You might as well have a neon sign over your head saying "nutcase conspiracy theorist" if you question anything about that day in some peoples eyes. They see people who have lost their jobs over it and maybe they like their house and car and don't wanna end up on welfare. Maybe they like their career. Maybe their hoping someone else will fix this and they won't need to. Maybe their waiting for a few hundred or thousand more people to stand beside. Maybe they don't want a label.
Some people just aren't willing to have that done to them when they don't have to.
Click to expand...

Or maybe they see the whole idea as a crock an not worthy of spending their time on.
 
lexicon008 said:
Just because 42% of voters didn't vote and therefore didn't vote for the losing candidate, it doesn't mean they support the winning candidate does it.
Click to expand...

Nor does it mean or imply that any portion supported the position of the losing candidate. However if one studied to reasons why the remaking 58% did not vote one would find that the largest given reason was disinterest in the subject. IMHO, ditto for 911 and Gage, which is odd considering that a technical issue concerning structures would be of greater interest to architects than to a general mix similar to the fact that those persons actually involved in politics would be so much more inclined to express their position by voting. In short, if stage cannot engage a large percentage of engineers and architects to express their position either way it demonstrates that this demographic is widely completely disinterested in the subject despite Gage's decade of lobbying.
 
Miragememories said:
It is interesting that you do not declare a belief that all of Richard Gage's presentation is untrue.

Richard Gage presents his case to live audiences which have ample opportunity to question him regarding the accuracy of his information.

He has been presenting this evidence to audiences worldwide.

Richard Gage and A&E911 Truth's goal is a full investigation into 9/11.

No one questions that on 9/11 there was a mass murder at the WTC.

What 9/11 Truth is concerned about is the incompleteness of the government's previous investigation.

The government explanation for WTC7's freefall has been thoroughly debunked.

The 2009 Bentham paper finding that nanothermite permeates all of the 9/11 WTC dust, provided scientific evidence that tons of this steel-melting military material was planted prior to 9/11.


MM
Click to expand...

Kiddo - the "keep repeating until it becomes true" thing doesn't actually work, you know.
 
LSSBB said:
Or maybe they see the whole idea as a crock an not worthy of spending their time on.
Click to expand...

agreed, but just because you don't beleive in a thing, doesn't make it false. And conversely, just because you do does not make it true.
Everyone has a threshhold of how much it will take to get them involved in an issue. Usually it comes down to how much that issue affects that person. While this issue, on a big scale, affects everyone. On the small scale, most who aren't directly involved are not, in their minds, directly affected and therefore it's easy to not get involved, express an opinion or waste their time on the subject.
 
jaydeehess said:
Nor does it mean or imply that any portion supported the position of the losing candidate. However if one studied to reasons why the remaking 58% did not vote one would find that the largest given reason was disinterest in the subject. IMHO, ditto for 911 and Gage, which is odd considering that a technical issue concerning structures would be of greater interest to architects than to a general mix similar to the fact that those persons actually involved in politics would be so much more inclined to express their position by voting. In short, if stage cannot engage a large percentage of engineers and architects to express their position either way it demonstrates that this demographic is widely completely disinterested in the subject despite Gage's decade of lobbying.
Click to expand...

ah but is it disinterest or self preservation? I'm sure all or most of them are interested in the subject in one way or the other, but are they willing to express that opinion and deal with the fall out, good or bad?
 
Miragememories said:
It is interesting that you do not declare a belief that all of Richard Gage's presentation is untrue



So how many truths are required to justify some concern on your part?

MM
Click to expand...
Above, plus the fact of the date are among the facts Gage gets right so you are correct, it is not true that Gage is wrong about everything. The rest of your post is either incorrect or irrelevant to how much Gage got right.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom