Comment: You're putting your foot in your mouth & making my point for me.

(See in situ)


You're putting your foot in your mouth & making my point for me.

As you'd know if you'd have bothered reading even one or two minutes into the main link I posted, Gage is NOT sticking to his area of expertise. That's exactly the problem. I agree with you that he lacks the knowledge and/or expertise to weigh in on the Pentagon, and that it would therefore be "a wise policy" for him to leave "the Pentagon to others" and not "take a position". However, he has done the exactly opposite. He has been surrounded by extremely and systematically dishonest individuals whose influence has caused him to step way OUTSIDE of his area of expertise and to weigh in heavily on the Pentagon event, promoting known disinformation on the subject that even many of his own peers and colleagues readily recognize as such. So, by your own (very reasonable) standard, he has done something very UNWISE.

This is why, despite weighing in heavily in writing via a bogus hit piece that he later admitted was written or co-written for him by unnamed others, he absolutely refuses to debate or discuss the subject (and the things written in "his" paper about it) with the people on the receiving end of he and his handlers' assault.

Your inability to spend more than 30 seconds reading anything I posted explains why you are making nonsensical charges of "vague innuendo" and repeating years-old "honeypot" talking points: You've soaked up enough propaganda that you're taking other people's word on the matter and you've closed your mind so much that you can't even bring yourself to HEAR the other side let alone objectively consider it.

In the same vein, I bet you haven't even read the actual nanothermite paper in full and are just taking people's word for it. If you have that would put you in the extreme minority even within "the movement". I've personally done (informal) surveys and confirmed this. Very, very few people have read it, and even less have comprehended it, because it is long and LOADED with incomprehensible technojargon. I'm not saying the conclusion isn't (or is) correct, but this is not, in my view, a good foundation for a "truth movement" to be built upon.

On the other hand, everything else you cite I agree with and think is critical evidence. It's also much easier for the layman to understand which is vital. As I said I'm not trying to diminish or discredit it the way you are with the eyewitness at the Pentagon and their damning accounts. Please actually spend time at those links instead of just having this uniformed knee-jerk reaction about matters you haven't yet taken any time to learn about.