AE911Truth's Richard Gage gives TV Interview in Vancouver last April

[scott75]

Just saw it today, I thought it was quite good. He talks about themes that are familiar here but I just find it refreshing to see a truther being treated with respect on TV. It's a 20 minute clickable popup video on the left hand bar of the Architects and Engineers for Truth page:
http://www.ae911truth.org/

[Bolo Boffin]

1. "themes familiar here" = long ago debunked

http://ae911truth.info
http://www.debunking911.com/index.html
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/


Look, I can Googlebomb, too!

[rollingrock]

2. 'Long ago debunked'

:rofl::rofl::rofl:





that's a good one.

[Bolo Boffin]

3. Well, pick your best shot from what Gage said in the Vancouver video

You produce the argument, I'll produce the debunking.

[rollingrock]

4. Let me guess

'The lower structure was brittle when compared to the force that hit it from above.' (?)
-Bolo Boffin


OMG! You just destroyed Gage's entire lecture in one sentence!
He must be devastated, I'm sure...lol.

[Bolo Boffin]

5. I ask you to produce an argument of Gage's from the video, and you produce one of my statements.

Which I stand by, BTW.

But did you understand the question?

[rollingrock]

6. You mean like peanut brittle?

or was it more like pamcakes?

[Bolo Boffin]

7. Anyone else want to produce an argument they find convincing from Richard Gage in the OP? n/t

[Bolo Boffin]

8. Well, let's start from the beginning

Gage says he's worked on steel-framed fireproofed buildings before. Well, that's all well and good, but Gage has never worked on high-rise buildings like the Towers and Building 7. So he's misrepresenting his expertise there.

Then he says David Ray Griffin convinced him. However, David Ray Griffin is completely incompetent when it comes to the subject of controlled demolition. Ryan Mackey's paper on one section of his "Debunking 9/11 Debunking", the section concerning the NIST report shows how whacked-out Griffin is on this subject. If Gage, a building professional, was convinced by David Ray Griffin, a theologian, using evidence like Griffin presented in his book, Gage needs his head examined, or at least his license reviewed.

http://ae911truth.info/pdf/drg_nist_review_2_1.pdf

Finally, Gage presents a first argument - 118 first responders who mention sounds that they describe as explosions or like explosions. Curiously enough, AE911Truth or Gage can never produce a single videotape with sound of explosions present. They always rely on these witness accounts. But the collapse of all three of these buildings were videotaped from various vantage points, and no explosions from explosive devices are ever discernible.

Furthermore, Brent Blanchard, a demolition expert, has examined seismograph records that would have recorded any characteristic signatures of explosive devices and found nothing.

Most of the accounts that they use are actually similes, and hardly any (if any at all) are being given by the witness to convey the idea that explosive devices were actually present.

So in the absence of hard evidence of actual explosive devices being used to bring the towers down, and in the presence of hard evidence showing they were not there at all, the accounts of the first responders are clearly being cherry-picked to produce a favorable argument for CD advocates.

[Ghost in the Machine]

9. pointing to your own website as an appeal to authority again??

:rofl:

"However, David Ray Griffin is completely incompetent when it comes to the subject of controlled demolition. Ryan Mackey's paper on one section of his "Debunking 9/11 Debunking", the section concerning the NIST report shows how whacked-out Griffin is on this subject."

What makes Ryan Mackey "competent" when it "comes to the subject of controlled demolition"?

Ryan Mackey is a research scientist at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, specializing in vehicle autonomy and Integrated Systems Health Management for aircraft and spacecraft.
http://www.911myths.com/html/ryan_mackey.html

"Furthermore, Brent Blanchard, a demolition expert, has examined seismograph records that would have recorded any characteristic signatures of explosive devices and found nothing."

Brent Blanchard has been thoroughly debunked. Brent Blanchard has not produced one piece of data to back up his "analysis" that he wrote. Brent Blanchard is a fraud, and the fact that you keep citing him shows your intellectual dishonesty and your incurious nature, thus your need to continuously appeal to authority.

[Bolo Boffin]

11. No, pointing to my website is not an appeal to authority.

That is where the paper I referred to is stored. That is where I stored it. I'm not pretending I didn't author the website. I'm not citing myself as an authority.

When I do link to actual pages on my website, that also isn't an appeal to authority. It's a shortcut to a place where I've already typed out the answer so I don't have to type it out again.

Grow up.

If Ryan Mackey is so incompetent, it must be easy to point that out. I don't think you should do that here, though. That would be off topic. There are threads where I've asked people to do that. It never happened. Please find one of those and have at it.

Brent Blanchard has not been debunked. I'm happy to appeal to his authority, because it's not a fallacy to do so. He's an actual authority in the field. You don't like that he didn't show you his work. Well, tough titty.

Got anything besides bickering and attacking me?

[scott75]

12. A critique of Ryan Mackey

If Ryan Mackey is so incompetent, it must be easy to point that out.

It is:
http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/mackey/index.html">Critique of Ryan Mackey

[Bolo Boffin]

14. Behind the times again, scott

Hoffman's "critique" has already been responded to by Mackey. His rebuttal is in the paper that I linked to.

[scott75]

18. I've dealt with some of Mackey's rebuttals..

Atleast some of it does nothing of the sort. How about you simply excerpt one of Mackey's alleged rebuttals to one of the many points I presented and we'll take it from there?

[Bolo Boffin]

27. Dude, your thread is about Gage in Vancouver.

I've issued the same challenge about that interview, and you want to discuss the Mackey Paper?

Let me go find the link to the argument I put into its own thread...

ETA: It's been archived. Here's a second chance for scott75 to work his Mackey takedown skillz.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x242219

[scott75]

65. I felt the OP was more of a comment on the scarcity of the media respecting the truth movement...

But since you wanted to debate points, I felt it'd be a lot easier for me to simply take some from Gage's web site then transcribe them from what he said in the video.

Anyway, I'll take a look at your Mackey thread.

[AZCat]

70. Do you think the "truth movement" merits respect from the media?

What has it accomplished to deserve such respect?

[scott75]

71. I do

I believe it's accomplished a great deal, despite the fact that it's gotten no funding from the government.

[AZCat]

73. What would be, in your opinion...

the accomplishments of the "truth movement" that should have caused it to earn respect from the media?

[scott75]

76. Some of them have revealed a lot more of the truth...

...then the government's official story ever has. The fact that this forum exists solely to speak of 9/11 may be, atleast in part, due to their efforts as well.

[AZCat]

93. Can you provide examples?

I'm not going to argue about the difficulty the "truth movement" seems to have in describing the actual "official story" - that's been done a dozen times elsewhere. Instead, I'd like to see examples of the "truth movement" revealing "a lot more of the truth" than whatever you consider the "official story" to be.

[defendandprotect]

115. The examples are grossly visible in all the evidence which the 9/11 Commission . . .

had to ignore -

Like the coincidence of the '93 bombing of the WTC . . . did Bin Laden do that?

Or was that an FBI deal?

Bombs reported by just about everyone on the scene --

The impossibilities of a plane with jet fuel bringing down the towers --

The obvious visual clues to demolition -- and the opportunities and instances of

obvious "work" being done in the buildings.

The evidence of bombs going off first in the basement/sub-basements.

The entire official story is evidence against itself.

[Theobald]

117. This is F'in Stupid

Quote from DP "Bombs reported by just about everyone on the scene --"

What sort of fantasy world do you live in that you can proffer this statement without realizing that you are nothing but a liar or certifiably nuts? Bombs were not reported by just about everyone on the scence; not half of them, not a quarter of them, not even 10% of them. I know people who were on the scene and who were in the building and none of them reported bombs. I've seen video of people who heard explosions or heard something that sounded like a bomb going off, but noone who reported that there were bombs.

Quote from DP "Like the coincidence of the '93 bombing of the WTC . . . did Bin Laden do that?"

Two events, eight years apart, and you are trying to proffer a coincidence? And no Bin Laden did not do WTC 93.

[defendandprotect]

118. For the record . . .

and giving some benefit to the under informed, disinformed and misinformed . . .

The Firefighters reported bombs going off in the buildings ---

the police reported bombs going off in the buildings ---

Survivors reported bombs going off in the buildings ---

Those who called home before they died reported bombs going off --

Witnesses -- and seismic records show that bombs were going off --

The evidence of explosions going off all around the building is clear from film ---

And, of course, '93 was just another COINCIDENCE . . . !!!

[scott75]

120. Where to begin?

I recommend you read a book or 2 from David Ray Griffin or Jim Marrs concerning 9/11. However, since I doubt you'll do that, I think you can learn enough from people like Tony Szamboti in this very forum concerning the WTC collapses.

And while many others in the truth movement may not have his level of expertise, I have found many of them to provide immensely valuable contributions to the truth, from the unexploded thermite to the pentagon plane attack sham (see thepentacon.com).

[AZCat]

121. Before you start annointing Tony as a saint...

why don't we wait to see if he really has the knowledge and skillset you seem to think he does? He's said some things here and elsewhere on the internet that cause me to doubt his capabilities.

[defendandprotect]

114. Absolutely . . .

what has the 9/11 Commission done to deserve respect?

It's on a long listd of phony investigations starting with the UHAC hearings/McCarthy
and on to Warren Commission, Iran Contra, October Surprise, etal.

[Ghost in the Machine]

15. A few points....

"That is where the paper I referred to is stored. That is where I stored it. I'm not pretending I didn't author the website. I'm not citing myself as an authority.

When I do link to actual pages on my website, that also isn't an appeal to authority. It's a shortcut to a place where I've already typed out the answer so I don't have to type it out again."

Ok, I do the same thing at times, so I can understand that. I have to wonder though... where are all the hypocritical OCTers who accused *me* of "link baiting" and "trying to get people to click on your ads" when I linked to my site?

"Grow up."

My, what a grown-up rebuttal!


"If Ryan Mackey is so incompetent, it must be easy to point that out. I don't think you should do that here, though. That would be off topic. There are threads where I've asked people to do that. It never happened. Please find one of those and have at it."

Actually, no it *wouldn't* be off topic, since *you* brought Ryan Mackey and competence up. I asked you what made him a competent voice on controlled demolition. It wasn't a hard question, why can't you answer it?


"Brent Blanchard has not been debunked. I'm happy to appeal to his authority, because it's not a fallacy to do so. He's an actual authority in the field. You don't like that he didn't show you his work. Well, tough titty."

Yes, Brent Blanchard *has* been debunked. Live with it. Brent Blanchard hasn't shown *ANYONE* his work. He has not provided one piece of evidence to back up his analysis. Not ONE piece. I challenge you, right now, to produce one piece of evidence provided by Brent Blanchard, Implosion World or Protec Services.

Tell me something, Bolo... if John Glenn said the moon was made of cheese, would you appeal to his authority because he's been there and you haven't, or would you require actual proof of his analysis?

"Got anything besides bickering and attacking me?"

Aww... still playing the poor little persecuted victim role? Pointing out facts isn't "bickering", nor is it "attacking" you.

[Bolo Boffin]

17. So you don't have anything beside bickering and attacks.

Back on ignore you go.

[scott75]

20. Bolo, you're not exactly always known for your civilized points...

...as I just pointed out in another subthread here. I think your recent post of points was far more insulting then Ghost's, but anyway...

[Bolo Boffin]

22. Scott, Ghost and I have history.

You don't have any idea what you are talking about, so back off.

[SDuderstadt]

23. Ah, so it's *Ghost*...

you're going back and forth with. Sometimes I'm tempted to take him off ignore for the entertainment value alone, but anyone who refers to another DU member as a "stupid OCTabot fucker" (I don't care that it was on a completely different website - it was totally uncalled for) doesn't deserve to be considered seriously. I also think his habit of enclosing words in asterisks is pretty bizarre. You're best off to ignore him Bolo. I think a variation of the "Lared rule" is in order here, as I don't recall whether he is a "no-planer" or not.

[scott75]

28. As people may have noticed by now...

I myself don't use the f word. This doesn't mean that I haven't corresponded with people who do, and those people are not always on my side. However, I would like it if it wasn't used in online discussions. I tend to think that it's generally useful in only one scenario; when it can prevent something worse, like a physical fight; something that generally isn't a possibility online :-p.

[SDuderstadt]

33. Talk to *Ghost*...

I just reported what he said.

[scott75]

62. I did...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=242083&mesg_id=242217

[Ghost in the Machine]

24. A history of me proving you wrong and you running off crying...

..right, Mr. "the lake is only yards away from the crater"?

The only "history" we have is of you burying your head in the sand when you can't refute what I've posted...

What makes David Ray Griffin incompetent to speak about controlled demolition, but Ryan Mackey competent.. other than the fact that Ryan Mackey says what you *want* to hear?

Where is Brent Blanchard's evidence??

Quit whining and answer the questions already, would ya?

[scott75]

29. A lot of people like burying their heads in the sand now and then..

I'm sure I'm not immune concerning some things. However, I do think that being civilized does help in actually getting to the points. I have criticized Bolo at times, but I haven't seen him use the f word... I think.. I just want there to be a basic minimum amount of civility regardless of the views one professes to have I guess.

[scott75]

26. I'm just saying your comments aren't always civil...

I didn't say anything about your history with Ghost.

[Ghost in the Machine]

21. **SNORT**!!

Hide your head back in the sand, bobo... you obviously can't deal with facts, nor can you produce any evidence/data from your beloved, though thoroughly debunked, Brent Blanchard.... hell, you can't even explain why Ryan Mackey is competent to discuss controlled demolition.

The world is a much easier place when you're playing ostritch, isn't it?


:rofl:

[achtung_circus]

82. John Glenn was on the moon? nt

[Ghost in the Machine]

83. *red faced embarrassment*

:blush:

Good catch... I was thinking of Neil Armstrong, don't know why the hell I typed John Glenn...

:hi:

[OnTheOtherHand]

88. OK...

Setting aside the personal stuff that no one really cares about....

We could debate whether Mackey or Griffin has better credentials to discuss controlled demolition hypotheses. I mean, I guess we could. I think it's pretty obvious. Or we could skip that part and get to the arguments. I daresay that many people who find Mackey a credible source do so not because of his credentials as an engineer, but because his arguments seem to make sense -- and, I might add, because Mackey's critics often avoid detail, and often seem ridiculous when they do.

For instance, I just followed a link to Hoffman's response, which states early on that the structure of Mackey's article "seems designed to make the issue seem so complex that only an expert could understand it." I find that very strange. I don't think Mackey's article makes the issue seem complex at all. Where Mackey claims, "Explosives large enough to instantaneously pulverize 25,000 tons or more of structure would be difficult to mistake," Hoffman talks all around the point but makes no real attempt to rebut it. Similarly, when Hoffman says of Mackey's treatment of the South Tower tilt, "Just try to follow his explanation.... Does it make any sense at all?", I can only say, yes, it makes a lot of sense, and maybe Hoffman is out of his depth here -- as when he alleges that Mackey's scenario requires the east-side columns to "catch the top" (which it clearly doesn't). Hoffman seems at a loss to engage arguments without resort to inaccurate paraphrase. Perhaps CD devotees are unconscious of the extent to which they seem simply to assume that they are right.

--Where was Blanchard debunked? I don't own stock in Blanchard. I have no idea whether seismic evidence is conclusive here, and I don't know that it matters anyway. To win the argument, CD devotees would have to explain how tower collapses that look very much like progressive collapses actually were caused by something else -- and they seem remarkably unwilling to think through the causal logic of what the "something else" might be. If you can point me to a counterexample, by all means....

[Ghost in the Machine]

98. In the interest of clarity...

I haven't made an argument one way or the other in regards to David Ray Griffin or Ryan Mackey. Bolo made the statement that DRG wasn't qualified to speak on the subject of controlled demolition since he's not a CD expert, then goes on to cite Ryan Mackey.. who isn't a CD expert either. I'm just questioning what makes Mackey, a jet propulsion scientist, any more qualified than Griffin. It's a question that Bolo doesn't seem to want to answer.


As for Brent Blanchard, Jim Hoffman has debunked him quite well in his rebuttal to to Blanchard's "analysis". http://911research.wtc7.net/reviews/blanchard/index.html

I think I've done a pretty good job of debunking him myself, but hey, I'm just an anonymous poster on the internet.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=125x206605#241070
I make no claims of being an expert, either... I've just done a little research and have come to my own conclusions. The funny thing is, a lot of what I've concluded matches pretty much what Jim Hoffman was saying, although I had never read Hoffman's rebuttal until the other day. So far, no one here has been able to refute my findings. As I stated, my conclusions *do not* prove controlled demolition, they only show that seismic evidence doesn't *disprove* controlled demolition.

Peace,

Ghost

[OnTheOtherHand]

99. well...

"Bolo made the statement that DRG wasn't qualified to speak on the subject of controlled demolition since he's not a CD expert..."

Well, no. My paraphrase would be that Bolo stated that DRG is incompetent on the issue because Mackey's paper showed how poor DRG's arguments are. Bolo therefore expressed pointed amazement that a building professional would be convinced by an out-of-field scholar who used such poor arguments. You may think it is rude of Bolo to mention that DRG is a theologian, but his reasoning isn't altered or undermined if that word is omitted.

I don't think your alternative paraphrase is defensible. I therefore wonder why you offer it.

"I'm just questioning what makes Mackey, a jet propulsion scientist, any more qualified than Griffin. It's a question that Bolo doesn't seem to want to answer."

Perhaps because it isn't germane to Bolo's argument. If Mackey eviscerates DRG's arguments, it doesn't really matter what Mackey is or isn't an expert in. I'm not sure why this needs to be explained once, much less repeatedly.

"As for Brent Blanchard, Jim Hoffman has debunked him quite well in his rebuttal to to Blanchard's 'analysis'."

For now, I'm scoring that mixed. On the seismic issue with respect to Blanchard, I give it to you: while I cannot tell whether Hoffman is getting this right, I certainly have no basis for concluding that seismic evidence rules out CD, because Blanchard doesn't provide a detailed argument. Much of Hoffman's rebuttal seems off-point to me in much the same way as much of his attempt to rebut Mackey seems off-point.

As for your own comments, I'm far from convinced that you have any more idea than I do what "a few well-placed charges would have registered." Nor have I ever seen much reason to posit the existence of "a few well-placed charges," much less why the evidence is taken to demand "a few well-placed charges" but not a great many charges in careful synchronization. So I'm pretty lost. I understand that your conclusions don't "prove" CD; the question remains why we are even discussing CD.

[jberryhill]

102. What makes an engineering researcher more competent than a theologian....

...on a question more relevant to engineering than theology?

C'mon, Ghost, that's your question?

[Ghost in the Machine]

104. I'm disappointed by your blatantly misleading subject title, mr berryhill. Engineering Researcher??

"Ryan Mackey is a research scientist at the NASA Jet Propulsion Laboratory, specializing in vehicle autonomy and Integrated Systems Health Management for aircraft and spacecraft."
http://www.911myths.com/html/ryan_mackey.html


Please tell me, Mr Berryhill.... does Ryan Mackey research how to make buildings go up faster? Come down faster? Stand still faster?? Heal itself? How exactly, pray tell, does someone "specializing in vehicle autonomy and Integrated Systems Health Management for aircraft and spacecraft" become automatically qualififed to discuss building demolitions? You've stretched the truth to its breaking point with this post.

[OnTheOtherHand]

106. so we all agree that Mackey's credentials trump Griffin's?

I don't know how else to interpret this diversion.

[Ghost in the Machine]

107. The only thing that trumps anything is the facts of an argument...

if the facts of the argument are solid it shouldn't matter if said argument is offered up by a professional in the field or an offramp bum.

I only asked the question because Bolo Boffin seems to think that credentials are relevant, even though Ryan Mackey has no credentials as a demolition expert, either. His credentials are in systems pertaining to space ships and airplanes, not buildings. He refuses to answer the question because he knows it would destroy his main argument about most of the people he rails against, which is "he's not qualified to speak on the subject of ___________"....

[jberryhill]

111. "space ships and airplanes, not buildings"

You do understand that the core curriculum studied by mechanical engineers is the same, whether they work on space ships, airplanes, or buildings, yes?

[OnTheOtherHand]

116. yadda yadda yadda

We all know how Gage publicizes his credentials. And we all see you dancing around the obvious. Worse, we see stuff like this:

He refuses to answer the question because he knows it would destroy his main argument about most of the people he rails against...

I suppose that may be tautologically true if one interprets literally "argument about... people." The trouble is that everyone knows that Bolo posts a great many intricately substantive comments, and maintains an intricately substantive website. So your complaints are difficult to credit.

If these are the best arguments you can muster, well, so noted.

[jberryhill]

108. And you tell me this....

Which is more like an orange?

An Apple or a television.

The question at hand was the relative qualifications of an engineering research scientist or a theologian to discuss an engineering question.

If you want to call out someone comparing apples and oranges, don't sit there comparing televisions and oranges and claim to be doing the same thing.

[Ghost in the Machine]

109. Well...

Let's see here.. I worked for a City Government in an engineering capacity. Most times I was a Street Resurfacing Engineer ( I filled pot holes), and other times I was a Sanitation Engineer ( I sometimes filled in on the trash trucks if a regular crew member was out sick or on vacation).

By your logic, I'm fully qualified to speak about building demolition because I held a job with "engineer" in the title.... YAY ME!!! :woohoo:

[jberryhill]

110. Yes, you are probably more qualified than DRG...

...and not as qualified as Mackey.

You see how that works?

If I have to drive a nail, and my choices are a screwdriver and a pair of vise grips, then I will drive the nail with the vise grips. Is it a hammer? No, it's not a hammer. But vise grips will drive a nail better than a screwdriver will.

Your use of the term "fully qualified" misses the point. But given the choice between someone with an advanced degree in an interdisciplinary research environment that draws on a lot of engineering analysis on the one hand, and a theologian on the other hand, I'll take the tech guy's opinion over the guy with the background in fairy tales.

[jberryhill]

112. Ummmm... yes....

Vehicle autonomy - i.e. robotic vehicles - is engineering research.

JPL is an interdisciplinary research environment, and you can bet that a lot of folks there have the basic core curriculum in engineering pretty well nailed down by the time they specialize in any particular research area.

[rollingrock]

39. Are you an expert on controlled demolition, Mr. bolo?

No?

Then what makes you qualified to speak on the subject of building collapses?
Going so far as creating your own website on the subject??

Gage is 100 times more qualified to speak on the subject then you are, bolo,
or any of your 'expert' sources for that matter.

[AZCat]

41. Gage is qualified?

What then, pray tell, are his relevant qualifications?

[Ghost in the Machine]

44. What are Ryan Mackey's relevant qualifications?

:shrug:

[AZCat]

45. I'm not the one making an argument from authority.

rollingrock is.

[rollingrock]

47. Is bolo incapable of speaking for himself?

[AZCat]

51. Shall I take that as a refusal to list Gage's credentials? n/t

[rollingrock]

54. bolo already did that

must everything be repeated for you?

[AZCat]

56. Are you referring to this post?

Post #8 of this thread

Do you think this is an accurate and complete listing of Gage's credentials? Does he have no other qualifications?

[Ghost in the Machine]

48. Umm, no.... actually

.. it's Bolo Boffin who's arguing from authority:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=125&topic_id=242083&mesg_id=242180

[AZCat]

49. Yes, rollingrock is making an argument from authority.

So is Bolo Boffin, but that doesn't matter (and he's not calling himself the authority, but rather Blanchard). If rollingrock wants to use Gage as an authority (rather than just presenting his arguments on their merits alone) then he needs to prove Gage's expertise.

[Bolo Boffin]

50. Yes, but an argument from authority isn't necessarily a fallacy.

And I know you know that. :D

[AZCat]

52. Exactly.

All rollingrock needs to do is prove Gage is an authority on building collapses and he can use his opinion as support for an argument on building collapses (assuming the opinion is relevant).

[Bolo Boffin]

57. He's going to have a little difficulty in that.

Gage has already admitted that he and his organization don't have expertise in the subject.

[AZCat]

59. Then it's a ridiculous argument.

Perhaps rollingrock should take better care when vetting his experts.

[Ghost in the Machine]

55. I don't see rollingrock stating that *he's* an authority anywhere in his response...

Further more, I don't see Bolo Boffin offering up an answer as to what makes Ryan Mackey competent (proving Mackey's expertise) to speak on the subject of controlled demolition, nor do I see him doing anything other than taking Brent Blanchard's word about the seismographic evidence. Brent Blanchard has never provided any evidence/data to back up his "analysis" that rules out CD.

Don't you think that someone making the claims that Brent Blanchard does should provide some kind of evidence/data to back up his claims?

[AZCat]

58. rollingrock is arguing that Richard Gage is an authority...

on building collapses. See his post here:

39. Are you an expert on controlled demolition, Mr. bolo?
No?

Then what makes you qualified to speak on the subject of building collapses?
Going so far as creating your own website on the subject??

Gage is 100 times more qualified to speak on the subject then you are, bolo,
or any of your 'expert' sources for that matter.

I'm not sure what Bolo Boffin's arguments re. Mackey are, but I thought he was just presenting Mackey's arguments on their merits, rather than claiming Mackey's opinion was relevant because of his expertise. Mackey (or you and I, for that matter) doesn't need to have relevant credentials to make a sound argument; he needs them to give weight to his opinion. The same applies to Blanchard.

[rollingrock]

60. Wrong

what I said was Gage was MORE qualified than bolo to speak on the subject.

again, you fail.

[AZCat]

61. I see you've managed to miss a simple point.

What you've stated is still an argument from authority. Any argument that rests on the qualifications of someone (Gage versus Bolo Boffin, in this case) is an argument from authority. As Bolo Boffin correctly pointed out above, this isn't necessarily a fallacy - you just have to prove that person's authority, which means proving Richard Gage is "100 times more more qualified to speak on the subject" than Bolo Boffin.

[rollingrock]

64. bolo can't speak for himself?

what are you his lawyer?

[Bolo Boffin]

66. Quit trying to intimidate him. n/t

[AZCat]

69. I think that is highly unlikely.

Given rollingrock's posting history, I think I'm safe. Those who loudly proclaim foolish statements aren't intimidating - they are merely obvious.

[Bolo Boffin]

79. That's why I changed that to "trying". n/t

[AZCat]

68. It's called an "internet forum", rollingrock.

I suggest you look it up, since you seem to struggle with the concept.

[rollingrock]

72. So you agree with bolo

that you have to be an expert with formal training in building demolitions, in order to credibly speak on the subject? If so, what is bolo's formal training in this area and what is yours? Hmmmm?

[AZCat]

74. How you drew that conclusion, I don't know.

Maybe it has to do with your poor reading comprehension.

[Name removed]

77. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AZCat]

90. Not really.

I don't expect you to understand why it isn't "a fair and simple question". You haven't demonstrated much in the way of cognitive skills or reading comprehension.

[rollingrock]

78. I didn't draw any conclusion

I am ASKING you if you agreed with bolo's assertion.

You know the difference between a question and a conclusion?

[AZCat]

92. You know, they sell Tom Smykowski's...

"jump to conclusions" mat. Perhaps you should pick one up?

[Ghost in the Machine]

63. Thank you...

"Mackey (or you and I, for that matter) doesn't need to have relevant credentials to make a sound argument; he needs them to give weight to his opinion. The same applies to Blanchard."


The only thing I could dispute there is that the word "more" should be added to "give (more) weight to his opinion"...

A sound argument, based on facts, is a sound argument, no matter what... as you stated above. A professional background in a subject does give an opinion *more* weight, but facts really give the opinion all the weight it needs, IMHO....


Good to see you around... hope all is well with you and yours


Peace,

Ghost

[AZCat]

67. Exactly.

I think we'd all like it if nobody ever had to rely on arguments from authority, but unfortunately we are all laypeople (just in different areas). Sometimes we must rely on the opinion of another who is much more knowledgeable about a subject, because we don't have the background or technical skills to assess the evidence independently. I don't like it any more than you do, but it is necessary. Then the ability to determine bias becomes very important, because frequently different sides of an argument present different sets of "experts". Who to believe? :shrug:


Life is good here, Ghost. I still have a job, I have wonderful friends, and we don't have a Bush in the White House. :)
I hope you are doing equally as well as I am.

[Bolo Boffin]

43. "Going so far as creating your own website on the subject??"

Do you need a fainting couch?

It's a bad day to need one of those. The Teabaggers have been fainting all over the place. It's a seller's market.

[rollingrock]

53. Bolo, you assert that in order to speak credibly

on the subject of building collapses, one must be a trained expert or specialized in controlled building demolitions. So I was just wondering what your area of expertise was and what makes you qualified to speak on the subject of building collapses? A fair question, no? What school did you go to, and were you trained in the physical properties of peanut brittle?

[Bolo Boffin]

80. Produce the post or place where I ever said anything so categorically.

Please stop making up things and deal with my actual words.

[rollingrock]

84. You claim Gage has no credibility

because he lacks specific expertise in building demolition/collapses.

In that case, neither do you.

When all else fails, attack your opponent's credentials (even when yours is lacking or in your case, non-existent).

[Bolo Boffin]

85. Produce the post.

Quit making up things that I've said. Produce a link to a post.

[rollingrock]

86. Here is your quote

Gage says he's worked on steel-framed fireproofed buildings before. Well, that's all well and good, but Gage has never worked on high-rise buildings like the Towers and Building 7. So he's misrepresenting his expertise there.


First of all Gage never claimed to have worked on high-rise buildings before. So he didn't misrepresent anything. Secondly, he never mentioned anything about the height of the steel-frame buildings he worked on, so you have no idea if he worked on high-rise buildings or not. You are simply making an ass-sumption.

By the way, do you have any experience working on a high-rise building yourself, bolo?? Do you even have experience working on steel-framed buildings of any kind?? Has Ryan Mackey ever worked on a high-rise building before?? If not, it makes you look foolish to attack someone's credentials when you yourself have none.



Also, from AZCAT, who states that one needs to be a known expert on building demolitions or collapses in order to speak credibly on the subject. It was actually AZCAT who made the claim and I admit I may have confused his post with yours, but it still stands that you are both guilty of attacking Gage's credentials when you yourselves have none.


All rollingrock needs to do is prove Gage is an authority on building collapses and he can use his opinion as support for an argument on building collapses (assuming the opinion is relevant).


Firstly, I never claimed Gage was an authority on collapses so I don't have to prove anything. Secondly, if one needs such credentials in order to speak credibly about building collapses as AZCAT asserts here, then AZCAT needs to offer proof of his own expertise on building collapses, otherwise he has no business discussing the subject, according to his own logic.

[Bolo Boffin]

87. What you said I said and what I actually said = two different things.

Stop misrepresenting what I say.

[Name removed]

95. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[AZCat]

89. I can see you're still struggling with the concept.

Please get back to us when you've actually learned what an argument from authority is. Otherwise there's no point in continuing the discussion.

[rollingrock]

94. No, you are

you stated that only those with expertise in building collapses have the authority to discuss building collapses. So let's see your credentials, AZCAT.

[AZCat]

103. I did? Let's see you quote that.

Because I'm pretty fucking sure I never said that.

[OnTheOtherHand]

105. reading is fundamental

Presumably (based on earlier parts of the thread) you're referring again to AZCat's statement, "All rollingrock needs to do is prove Gage is an authority on building collapses and he can use his opinion as support for an argument on building collapses (assuming the opinion is relevant)."

If you are willing to read this slowly, perhaps in context, you should be able to see that you are characterizing it incorrectly. No special "authority" is required to "discuss building collapses," nor did AZCat claim otherwise. The question is under what circumstances Gage's opinion, in itself, counts as support for an argument on building collapses.

At the risk of belaboring the obvious, if you think one or more of Gage's arguments stand on their own merits, then Gage's credentials are irrelevant. (Gage doesn't seem to regard his credentials as irrelevant, but I won't venture an inference.)

[scott75]

13. His site already has a bunch of good points..

He's got tons of good claims already written up on the web site he founded, ae911truth.org. Here's a bunch of good points from the site to consider concerning WTC 7:
1. Rapid onset of “collapse”
2. Sounds of explosions at ground floor - a full second prior to collapse
3. Symmetrical “collapse” – through the path of greatest resistance – at free-fall speed
4. Imploded, collapsing completely, and landed mostly in its own footprint
5. Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds
6. Several tons of molten metal reported by numerous highly-qualified witnesses
7. Chemical signature of Thermite (high tech incendiary) found in solidified molten metal, and dust samples by physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.
8. FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples
9. Expert corroboration from the top European Controlled Demolition professional
10. Fore-knowledge of “collapse” by media, NYPD, FDNY

It also exhibited none of the characteristics of destruction by fire, i.e.
1. Slow onset with large visible deformations
2. Asymmetrical collapse which follows the path of least resistance (laws of conservation of momentum would cause a falling, to the side most damaged by the fires)
3. Evidence of fire temperatures capable of softening steel
4. High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”.

[Bolo Boffin]

16. All right, Mr. Cut and Paste

http://ae911truth.info/tiki-index.php?page=Top+10+Boneheaded+Mistakes

Top 10 Boneheaded Mistakes of AE911Truth

The Admission of This Subject Being Outside Their Expertise
The Use of Discredited Sources
The Ever-Changing Features List
Selective Use of Authorities
Publishing Pictures of The Pancakes
Misunderstanding The ARA Contract
"Freefall" or "Near Freefall"
Illegitimate Comparison of Flame-Engulfed Buildings
Chandler Video Helps Prove NIST WTC 7 Model Valid
Dismissal of the Piledriver
Only 10 Boneheaded Mistakes?
The One Major Mistake

[scott75]

19. If you could just get rid of the insulting language..

...and actually come up with some solid critiques instead of some purely subjective points of view, perhaps we'd have something to discuss. As it is, however, all I can tell you is go back to square one here...

[Bolo Boffin]

25. How else to describe mistakes like the ones AE911Truth makes?

You don't want to address them? Fine. But plenty see just how idiotic their positions are.

[scott75]

30. You can just address them in a civil fashion...

...as I try to address your points.

[Bolo Boffin]

31. I'll do what the fuck I want to on my own fucking website.

Your job is disputing what I said. You want to sniff at my attitude? I fart in your general direction.

[rollingrock]

32. Got peanut?

[SDuderstadt]

35. I KNOW that guy!

Not Mr. Peanut, but the one on the left. He's Frank Chu and he's a very strange dude. He goes to all kinds of functions (I usually saw him at AT&T Park, where he would "picket" the Giants' games. His sign is unintelligible, but someone named a bar ofter the "7 Galaxies" phrase. Chu claims he somehow got ripped off by the Clinton administration.

[Bolo Boffin]

36. Wow, he seems way more crazy than kathaksung over at SC.

Kathaksung is a national treasure. :D

[Ghost in the Machine]

34. "Your job is disputing what I said."

BWAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!! :spray: :rofl:

Coming from someone who buries his head in the sand when he can't dispute something I've said is just... pathetic... yet priceless.

:rofl: :rofl:

[scott75]

75. Reported

Looks like the f word is a reportable offense here, so you've just gotten yourself reported.

[Bolo Boffin]

81. No, fuck or fucking or fuckfuckfuckfuck is not against the rules here.

I know. Fuck, right?

[AZCat]

91. Where did you get that idea?

Unless you're referring to a different "f word" ("fuck" is the commonly accepted one), it isn't verboten.

[OnTheOtherHand]

96. actually, someone ought to tell you...

The rules say nothing about the "f word," but do say: "Do not say that you are hitting the alert link to report another member." No big deal. Indeed I respect your desire to keep a civil tone all around.

[scott75]

100. I guess it's 'no personal attacks'..

So as long as you don't use the f word in a personal attack it's considered "ok". Anyway, thanks for the heads up on the 'don't say you alerted' bit.

[OnTheOtherHand]

101. also, certain words demeaning to women are proscribed

But the F bomb seems to be gender-neutral.

Cheers,
OTOH

[wildbilln864]

42. You'll produce someone else's attempt at debunking, you mean!t

Someone who wasn't there and can only speculate about what may have happened!

[wildbilln864]

10. Long denied but not debunked!

"Let us never tolerate outrageous
conspiracy theories concerning the attacks of September the 11th;" -G.W. Bush

[rollingrock]

37. ...still waiting for the debunking

...and waiting...and waiting...and waiting...


:popcorn:

[AZCat]

38. Maybe that's part of your problem. n/t

[rollingrock]

97. You're right

there's no use in waiting for something that will never come.

[scott75]

119. True, lol :-) -nt

[wildbilln864]

40. I've got a feeling...

we're going to need a lot more popcorn! :hi:

[rollingrock]

46. And peanut brittle

yum!

[defendandprotect]

113. Thanks . . . saved it for a quieter time -- !!