13 Comments

    • Well, they weren’t turning people away from the Trade Hall like they had to in Wellington. Apparently the Te Papa presentation was the best attended session they’ve ever had.

  1. James

    This is disappointing. One wonders what it would take to get you to see the obvious demolition, pretext, planning, evidence, whistle-blowing and even the sacrifice people like Mr Gage have made. The evidence is simply overwhelming. Lets hope for the boot-licking advocates of the unfolding post-democratic age and people who want to remain “sane” that you can produce a more convincing debunking than that from the completely corrupt Popular Mechanics

    • The problem is that everything you take to be ‘obvious’ I see as being data subject to misinterpretation and/or radical overstatement of what it means.

      • Actually I think the problem with debunking the theory is that one doesn’t know where to bloody start. It’s such a crapfest, and I mean all of it – there is not a single detail that makes remote sense. But stringing them all together somehow forms a picture coherent to some. Go figure.

        Some of my favourite bits are the ones that are implied, as you noted. For instance: since he states that he doesn’t believe for a minute that they would have left the task of hitting the towers to a bunch of Arabs who hadn’t even finished flight school, his theory actually requires kamikaze CIA operatives trained as airline pilots.

        And you say it “almost” beggars belief!

        • The whole ‘they never finished flight school’ is a great example of a red herring. These hijackers didn’t have to make the plane take-off or land. They just had to aim it. It’s just another example of the Truthers mischaracterising the particulars of the official story to make it look suspect when it is not.

          • Not only that, but the theory then requires a far less believable alternative to suicidal jihadists: suicidal employees of the US Treasury Department.

          • The point you make in no. 5 is sad but not really surprising. If this guy doesn’t even understand the most basic fact about how systematic research is done, then what hope is there for his theory’s coherence, let alone its accuracy?

            I’d be curious to hear more about these kamikaze CIA pilots. Do Gage and his like try to explain what might induce such a person to sacrifice his or her life? I was told by the one Troofer I know that the planes were flown into the buildings automatically…

            Apart from Penny Bright, who seems to have gotten right into the conspiracy theories (she was sending out e mails about the plot to depopulate the world using swine flu a while ago – I guess that came to nothing) was there anybody else at the meeting in Auckland with a past on the left? No Jeanette Fitzsimons?

          • There was a Scottish trade unionist who stood up and made a statement about how the unions were being taken over, but I don’t know who he was; I didn’t see anyone activist-y but I was trying to keep a low profile, given the vitriol I had been subjected to earlier.

            Gage doesn’t really speculate as to who and exactly how. He just says the buildings were destroyed in a controlled demolition and doesn’t touch what caused the planes to act the way they did that day.

  2. Fred Johnson

    Hi Matthew

    (Credit to you for attending again).

    How do you explain the molten steel at Ground Zero?

Comments are closed.