Richard Gage's Explosive Contradictions

[Edx]

I know I have posted this before but as it cant really be overstated how much the truth movement ignore how absurd it is to suggest there are explosives in the WTC I think its worth posting this again since I have now put it on youtube.

So heres Gage embarrasing himself, in a way I'm sure some truthers still won't understand even if its spelled out for them.

Read along with the annotations on the screen and also in the notes.





I originally put it on youtube in order to use it in a debate I was having without having to host the audio on my server. So I do plan on doing a more interesting video on this same thing.

(please rate and subscribe if you like it )

 

[twinstead]

"Explosive Contradictions" sounds like some kind of verbal irritable bowel syndrome.

 

[Edx]

"Explosive Contradictions" sounds like some kind of verbal irritable bowel syndrome.

Kinda like the kind of nonsense Gage comes out with.

 

[angrysoba]

I've just written up my final, and definitive blog post about Gage's performance in Osaka. There are a couple of videos of questions from JREFfers that essentially address this contradiction. He seems to want it both ways with his argument. There's a bit of introductory waffle for the uninitiated:

http://angrysoba.blogspot.com/2009/12/sheeple-outvoted.html

 

[cyclonic]

"Explosive Contradictions" sounds like some kind of verbal irritable bowel syndrome.

He had that when debating Mark Roberts.

Amazing how John Clifton keeps a straight face!

 

[Edx]

angrysoba, I havent read over it yet just looked at a few videos. Man were you having some audio trouble with the "explosion sounds" one!

I think you should post this to a new thread as it deserves its own!

 

[angrysoba]

angrysoba, I havent read over it yet just looked at a few videos. Man were you having some audio trouble with the "explosion sounds" one!

I think you should post this to a new thread as it deserves its own!

Yeah, there were mic problems. First, there wasn't one, then one that had feedback etc...

Okay, I'll put up a new thread...

 

[JAStewart]

Great video Edx. Simple and effective. Someone should present this to Gage.

 

[alienentity]

Gage's main role is to give a veneer of credibility to fantastical conspiracy claims, by providing any flimsy rationale he can grasp at.

Of course it's contradictory nonsense, but some people have a deep need to believe in this claptrap.

Gage's defenders often argue that explosives weren't heard for various reasons, yet they equally often claim that first responders heard explosions....so which is it?

 

[Edx]

Gage's defenders often argue that explosives weren't heard for various reasons, yet they equally often claim that first responders heard explosions....so which is it?

Because they grasp at anything no matter how contradictory, like you said.

Thats why they cite Barry Jennings talking about an "explosion" in WTC7 seven hours before it collapsed.

Despite the fact that actual demolition explosions are timed and sequential and don't have explosions going off randomly all over the place...

Despite the fact that any loud sound is usually called a explosion...

Despite the fact that most of the quotes they have are taken out of context...

Despite the fact that explosion sounds are fully expected in a building fire...

Despite the fact that no one reported any blast injuries from these explosions...

They still cant accept the simple fact:

You can have an explosion sound without it being from an explosive.... but you can't have an explosive without there being a sound.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

If Richard Gage happens to fart while in a debate on LIVE TV, would he:

A: Claim that it was caused by an explosive?

or

B: Claim that it's some anonymous gas eminating from somewhere within the building getting ready to explode?

 

[Edx]

Gage does indeed claim silent-but-violent explosives destroyed the WTC lol

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Gage does indeed claim silent-but-violent explosives destroyed the WTC lol

The old SBD's - Silent, But Deadly!

 

[JamesB]

Good video. He has done this numerous times. I had fun with it in an earlier video.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XP5GBXc3AOQ

 

[Slayhamlet]

Embedded:

 

[JamesB]

OK, I give up. How do you embed? Been looking it up for 5 minutes.

 

[Hokulele]

Use the [yt][/yt] tags around the video ID, which is the bit after the equals sign. For example, for your video it would be:

[yt]XP5GBXc3AOQ[/yt]

 

[Slayhamlet]

OK, I give up. How do you embed? Been looking it up for 5 minutes.

I explained it here in another thread.

 

[9/11 Chewy Defense]

Gage:

 

[tsig]

I've just written up my final, and definitive blog post about Gage's performance in Osaka. There are a couple of videos of questions from JREFfers that essentially address this contradiction. He seems to want it both ways with his argument. There's a bit of introductory waffle for the uninitiated:

http://angrysoba.blogspot.com/2009/12/sheeple-outvoted.html

Our old buddy psikeyhacker is there:

"Watch that Purdue simulation. If a 150 ton airliner crashes near the top of a skyscraper at 440 mph isn’t the building going to sway? Didn’t the survivors report the building “moving like a wave”? So why do the core columns in the Purdue video remain perfectly still as the plane comes in?"


simulation = video???