The Twin Towers' destruction exhibited all the characteristics of destruction by explosions:
1.
Extremely rapid onset of “collapse”
2.
Sounds of explosions at plane impact zone — a full second prior to collapse (heard by 118 first responders as well as by media reporters)
3.
Observations of flashes (seen by numerous professionals)
4.
Squibs, or “mistimed” explosions, 40 floors below the “collapsing” building seen in all the videos
5.
Mid-air pulverization of all the 90,000 tons of concrete and steel decking, filing cabinets & 1000 people – mostly to dust
6.
Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds
7.
Vertical progression of full building perimeter demolition waves
8.
Symmetrical collapse – through the path of greatest resistance – at free-fall speed — the columns gave no resistance
9.
1,400 foot diameter field of equally distributed debris – outside of building footprint
10.
Blast waves blew out windows in buildings 400 feet away
11.
Lateral ejection of thousands of individual 20 - 50 ton steel beams up to 500 feet
12.
Total destruction of the building down to individual structural steel elements – obliterating the steel core structure.
13.
Tons of molten Metal found by FDNY under all 3 high-rises (no other possible source other than an incendiary cutting charge such as Thermate)
14.
Chemical signature of Thermate (high tech incendiary) found in slag, solidified molten metal, and dust samples by Physics professor Steven Jones, PhD.
15.
FEMA finds rapid oxidation and intergranular melting on structural steel samples
16.
More than 1000 Bodies are unaccounted for — 700 tiny bone fragments found on top of nearby buildings
And 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, intact, from the point of plane impact, 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”
Full Version: From Richard Gage, AIA...
Peter...My antique Mac will not view movies except QuickTime. Can you
summarize the main points of this movie?
Thanks.
Jack
summarize the main points of this movie?
Thanks.
Jack
Gage compiles yet another laundry list, too bad for him that his sources rarely back his claims. For example his 2nd claim is
”Sounds of explosions at plane impact zone — a full second prior to collapse (heard by 118 first responders as well as by media reporters)”
But when one follows his link very few people said they heard an explosion just before the onset of collapse.
He also said the collapses, "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, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)"
But offers no evidence that this is how other buildings collapsed and opined:
"High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”"
But none of the buildings in the cited article suffered the pre-fire structural damage that affected the Twin Towers and is a critical part of the collapse theory. Also 2 of the buildings the Parque Central in Caracas and the Windsor Building in Madrid had concrete frames. The Windsor did have unprotected steel perimeter columns (The rest of the frame was concrete) and they did collapse along with the floor sections they were supporting after about an hour.
In the US and most other countries any building over a few stories tall needs to have its structure designed by a licensed structural engineer, architects aren’t considered competent to do so. Mr. Gage shows the wisdom of such rules.
”Sounds of explosions at plane impact zone — a full second prior to collapse (heard by 118 first responders as well as by media reporters)”
But when one follows his link very few people said they heard an explosion just before the onset of collapse.
He also said the collapses, "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, intact, from the point of plane impact, to the side most damaged by the fires)"
But offers no evidence that this is how other buildings collapsed and opined:
"High-rise buildings with much larger, hotter, and longer lasting fires have never “collapsed”"
But none of the buildings in the cited article suffered the pre-fire structural damage that affected the Twin Towers and is a critical part of the collapse theory. Also 2 of the buildings the Parque Central in Caracas and the Windsor Building in Madrid had concrete frames. The Windsor did have unprotected steel perimeter columns (The rest of the frame was concrete) and they did collapse along with the floor sections they were supporting after about an hour.
In the US and most other countries any building over a few stories tall needs to have its structure designed by a licensed structural engineer, architects aren’t considered competent to do so. Mr. Gage shows the wisdom of such rules.
Peter's post includes a reference to an interview with General Heinz Karst. According to Karst:
I'm not sure of the relevance of Karst's interview in the first place, but to get such a simple fact wrong casts doubt on whatever point or points he was trying to make.
“When, in 1995, the Federal building in Oklahoma was blown up and 168 human beings were killed, people first thought of Islamic terrorists. But they were Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, two elite soldiers of the Green Berets."A minor issue, but McVeigh was never an elite soldier of the Green Berets. He dropped out of training after the first or second day and left the US Army shortly after. I could find no evidence that Nichols was ever involved in any way with the Green Berets.
I'm not sure of the relevance of Karst's interview in the first place, but to get such a simple fact wrong casts doubt on whatever point or points he was trying to make.
QUOTE (Michael Hogan @ Sep 23 2007, 10:38 PM) 
Peter's post includes a reference to an interview with General Heinz Karst. According to Karst:
I'm not sure of the relevance of Karst's interview in the first place, but to get such a simple fact wrong casts doubt on whatever point or points he was trying to make.
“When, in 1995, the Federal building in Oklahoma was blown up and 168 human beings were killed, people first thought of Islamic terrorists. But they were Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, two elite soldiers of the Green Berets."A minor issue, but McVeigh was never an elite soldier of the Green Berets. He dropped out of training after the first or second day and left the US Army shortly after. I could find no evidence that Nichols was ever involved in any way with the Green Berets.
I'm not sure of the relevance of Karst's interview in the first place, but to get such a simple fact wrong casts doubt on whatever point or points he was trying to make.
Michael,
That's a very important point. Naturally I have my own views on 9/11, but if the people who believe it was not what it appears to be want to ensure their credibility is untarnished, they should check their facts and ensure that things like this do not occur.
Sure, it sounds juicier if you say someone belonged to this or that organisation, holds this or that qualification... but is it true? Things like this have a habit of being uncovered, so if you "enhance" someone's reputation in order to promote your views their discovery ultimately leads to them being discredited. This is very important because perhaps some - or even all - of what they say might be important / relevant / accurate. After being shown to have ones qualifications / experience / whatever not to the standard claimed, everything else they say is considered suspect.
If you hold a minority opinion, then your evidence should be above reproach and be able to withstand the utmost scrutiny by anyone - pro or con.
QUOTE (Evan Burton @ Sep 24 2007, 08:22 AM)
QUOTE (Michael Hogan @ Sep 23 2007, 10:38 PM)
Peter's post includes a reference to an interview with General Heinz Karst. According to Karst:
I'm not sure of the relevance of Karst's interview in the first place, but to get such a simple fact wrong casts doubt on whatever point or points he was trying to make.
“When, in 1995, the Federal building in Oklahoma was blown up and 168 human beings were killed, people first thought of Islamic terrorists. But they were Timothy McVeigh and Terry Nichols, two elite soldiers of the Green Berets."A minor issue, but McVeigh was never an elite soldier of the Green Berets. He dropped out of training after the first or second day and left the US Army shortly after. I could find no evidence that Nichols was ever involved in any way with the Green Berets.
I'm not sure of the relevance of Karst's interview in the first place, but to get such a simple fact wrong casts doubt on whatever point or points he was trying to make.
Michael,
That's a very important point. Naturally I have my own views on 9/11, but if the people who believe it was not what it appears to be want to ensure their credibility is untarnished, they should check their facts and ensure that things like this do not occur.
Sure, it sounds juicier if you say someone belonged to this or that organisation, holds this or that qualification... but is it true? Things like this have a habit of being uncovered, so if you "enhance" someone's reputation in order to promote your views their discovery ultimately leads to them being discredited. This is very important because perhaps some - or even all - of what they say might be important / relevant / accurate. After being shown to have ones qualifications / experience / whatever not to the standard claimed, everything else they say is considered suspect.
If you hold a minority opinion, then your evidence should be above reproach and be able to withstand the utmost scrutiny by anyone - pro or con.
Burton believes that:
"If you hold a minority opinion, then your evidence should be above reproach"
AMAZING! ASTOUNDING! He thinks "TRUTHERS" should be held to a higher
standard than LIARS. What bias!
Evidently he may be forced to change his mind when he reads about the Zogby poll
report below:
Kansas City, MO (Zogby International) September 6, 2007 - As America nears the sixth anniversary of the world-churning events of September 11, 2001, a new Zogby International poll finds a majority of Americans still await a Congressional investigation of President Bush’ and Vice President Cheney’s actions before, during and after the 9/11 attacks. Over 30% also believe Bush and/or Cheney should be immediately impeached by the House of Representatives.
The 911truth.org–sponsored poll also found that over two-thirds of Americans say the 9/11 Commission should have investigated the still unexplained collapse of the 47-story World Trade Center Building 7 at 5:20 p.m. on September 11, 2001.
WTC 7 housed the mayor’s emergency bunker and offices of the SEC, IRS, CIA and Secret Service and was not hit by any planes but still completely collapsed into its own footprint nearly eight hours after the Twin Tower attacks. FEMA did not explain this collapse, the 911 Commission ignored it, and the promised official study by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST) is now 2 years overdue.
Janice Matthews, executive director of poll sponsor 911truth.org, observes:
“The supermajority response to the WTC Building 7 question signals an increasing public concern about this remarkable event — up from 38% last year. We can perhaps credit this rising awareness to the millions who have recently witnessed videos or Youtube clips of this skyscraper’s descent and the outspoken demands for a new WTC inquiry from over 150 architects and engineering professionals, including NIST’s own former Fire Science Division Chief, Dr. James Quintiere. Another contributory factor is the increased questioning among Hispanics, Blacks and Asians whose responses appear significantly more critical of the 9/11 Commission than Whites, sometimes twice as critical.”
Strategy aide W. David Kubiak adds,
“While only 32% seek immediate Bush and/or Cheney impeachment based on their current personal knowledge, a clear majority of citizens still seems hungry for a full exposure of the facts. The results suggest widespread public support for legislators like Rep. Dennis Kucinich who pledge to investigate unanswered 9/11 questions in the relevant congressional committees this fall. We hope more of our representatives find the spine to respond to this escalating dissatisfaction with the dubious accounting we have received thus far.”
9/11 family member and 911truth.org advisor Donna Marsh O’Connor notes,
“I’m not sure this poll is at all surprising. Over half of those polled want more answers from Congress, from those they hired to represent them. One quarter of the country knows enough to want to impeach both. Doesn’t it just mean people need figures they consider credible to tell them whether key details add up or not? Truth advocates need to press their case in Congress, on college campuses, in church groups with reason and absolute discipline regarding what can and cannot be proven. The strongest evidence needs to reach the people—including people who hate computers. We must present it calmly. Like whispering so that people reach in to hear.”
Continue reading ‘Zogby poll released today - 51% of Americans Want Congress to Probe Bush/Cheney Regarding 9/11 Attacks’
Jack ...It's obvious by now that the Democrats in the House don't have what it takes to impeach Bush and Cheney , and bring the real 9/11 criminals to justice .... So short of a bloody revolution in the streets of America, where the 9/11 truth seekers would be squashed like flys , nothing can be done to get the truth out or stop the bad guys .
Since the media won't touch this subject , the only place left is the internet to get the truth out ... but as we both very well know , the disinformation agents and promoters of the official version of the events of that day , will do whatever it takes to stop this information from spreading any further than it already has .... and will also do whatever it takes to stop the 9/11 Truth Movement ... These are the worst of times for America and I don't see it ever getting any better .
Since the media won't touch this subject , the only place left is the internet to get the truth out ... but as we both very well know , the disinformation agents and promoters of the official version of the events of that day , will do whatever it takes to stop this information from spreading any further than it already has .... and will also do whatever it takes to stop the 9/11 Truth Movement ... These are the worst of times for America and I don't see it ever getting any better .
QUOTE (Peter Lemkin @ Sep 24 2007, 07:03 PM)
"If you hold a minority opinion, then your evidence should be above reproach"
This is to me a revolting idea, as minorities often do not have the resources, access to power, money and influence or media as non minorities. I know this was meant about those here who all likely have some access to some of the above, but still is a falacy in logic. Those few persons who escaped the Nazi Concentration camps and had precious little proofs and evidence should be held to the standards of the Reich's Propaganda apparatus?! Or those of us who said when it happened that the Gulf of Tonkin was a invented false-flag operation and had small voices in the media, little hard proofs.....well, we were right against the might rebuff and lies of the System. Ditto those first voices of decent against the official version of 11/22/63 - we were considered as 'nuts' as Lee Oswald was....well we were IMO [and that of a majority in the USA and World] correct. Besides, belief in the official verson of both Dallas or 911 is NOW THE MINORITY OPINION - SO YOU CAN KEEP YOUR OWN STANDARDS AND BE ABOVE REPROACH....ALL THE UN-TRUTHERS.
This is to me a revolting idea, as minorities often do not have the resources, access to power, money and influence or media as non minorities. I know this was meant about those here who all likely have some access to some of the above, but still is a falacy in logic. Those few persons who escaped the Nazi Concentration camps and had precious little proofs and evidence should be held to the standards of the Reich's Propaganda apparatus?! Or those of us who said when it happened that the Gulf of Tonkin was a invented false-flag operation and had small voices in the media, little hard proofs.....well, we were right against the might rebuff and lies of the System. Ditto those first voices of decent against the official version of 11/22/63 - we were considered as 'nuts' as Lee Oswald was....well we were IMO [and that of a majority in the USA and World] correct. Besides, belief in the official verson of both Dallas or 911 is NOW THE MINORITY OPINION - SO YOU CAN KEEP YOUR OWN STANDARDS AND BE ABOVE REPROACH....ALL THE UN-TRUTHERS.
Excellent, Peter. From now on, since the opposite of TRUTH is LIE, I intend to call
the provocateurs "911 LIARS" since they are the opposite of "911 TRUTHERS".
Jack
QUOTE (Jack White @ Sep 24 2007, 02:22 PM)
QUOTE (Evan Burton @ Sep 24 2007, 08:22 AM)
If you hold a minority opinion, then your evidence should be above reproach and be able to withstand the utmost scrutiny by anyone - pro or con.
Burton believes that:
"If you hold a minority opinion, then your evidence should be above reproach"
AMAZING! ASTOUNDING! He thinks "TRUTHERS" should be held to a higher
standard than LIARS. What bias!
Evidently he may be forced to change his mind when he reads about the Zogby poll
report.....
Jack, for the sake of discussion I'm going to adopt your nomenclature despite my disinclination for labels that
put people in one camp or another when in reality the issues are much more complex.
Truthers should want to hold themselves to a higher standard in my opinion. Each time one of theirs
uses sloppy research methods or misrepresents evidence, it casts aspersions on the group as a whole.
People that are neutral or leaning toward conspiracy or just want simple questions answered by the government are turned away when they are presented with evidence that does not make sense or that they recognize to be untrue. Then, the movement as a whole is harmed.
It is precisely because of all the erroneous claims and unverified information flooding the internet, that truths and legitimate questions become obscured. And thus, the truth movement is hindered.
QUOTE (Peter Lemkin @ Sep 24 2007, 03:03 PM)
"If you hold a minority opinion, then your evidence should be above reproach"
This is to me a revolting idea, as minorities often do not have the resources, access to power, money and influence or media as non minorities. I know this was meant about those here who all likely have some access to some of the above, but still is a falacy in logic. Those few persons who escaped the Nazi Concentration camps and had precious little proofs and evidence should be held to the standards of the Reich's Propaganda apparatus?! Or those of us who said when it happened that the Gulf of Tonkin was a invented false-flag operation and had small voices in the media, little hard proofs.....well, we were right against the might rebuff and lies of the System. Ditto those first voices of decent against the official version of 11/22/63 - we were considered as 'nuts' as Lee Oswald was....well we were IMO [and that of a majority in the USA and World] correct. Besides, belief in the official verson of both Dallas or 911 is NOW THE MINORITY OPINION - SO YOU CAN KEEP YOUR OWN STANDARDS AND BE ABOVE REPROACH....ALL THE UN-TRUTHERS.
This is to me a revolting idea, as minorities often do not have the resources, access to power, money and influence or media as non minorities. I know this was meant about those here who all likely have some access to some of the above, but still is a falacy in logic. Those few persons who escaped the Nazi Concentration camps and had precious little proofs and evidence should be held to the standards of the Reich's Propaganda apparatus?! Or those of us who said when it happened that the Gulf of Tonkin was a invented false-flag operation and had small voices in the media, little hard proofs.....well, we were right against the might rebuff and lies of the System. Ditto those first voices of decent against the official version of 11/22/63 - we were considered as 'nuts' as Lee Oswald was....well we were IMO [and that of a majority in the USA and World] correct. Besides, belief in the official verson of both Dallas or 911 is NOW THE MINORITY OPINION - SO YOU CAN KEEP YOUR OWN STANDARDS AND BE ABOVE REPROACH....ALL THE UN-TRUTHERS.
Since posting my reply to Jack, I've seen Peter's above comments and acknowledge the points he is making.
My original comments (and I believe Evan's also) were meant to be taken in the context of the presentation of research.
To use one example, early researchers that made wild and erroneous claims about President Kennedy's murder have long been forgotten. Researchers such as Weisberg and Meagher (and many others) that purposefully held themselves to a higher standard than the Warren Commission have had their work stand the test of time and they influenced countless others to seek the truth. They did so with much more limited resources than the federal government they were questioning.
Forum rule (vi)
“Make sure your postings are relevant to the thread. Please start another thread if your comments do not belong to any existing threads.”
Peter why do you insist on spamming most of the 9/11 threads with irrelevant “truther” statements? Is it because you know that most of the specific claims don’t stand up to scrutiny and try to obscure that fact by turning every thread into one about 9/11 in toto so muddy that it is difficult to discuss anything in depth? Go ahead prove me right an continue to post stuff that has nothing to do with Gage’s presentation here and other off topic stuff on other threads. Interestingly you post stuff relevant to Gage’s presentation on other threads.
“Make sure your postings are relevant to the thread. Please start another thread if your comments do not belong to any existing threads.”
Peter why do you insist on spamming most of the 9/11 threads with irrelevant “truther” statements? Is it because you know that most of the specific claims don’t stand up to scrutiny and try to obscure that fact by turning every thread into one about 9/11 in toto so muddy that it is difficult to discuss anything in depth? Go ahead prove me right an continue to post stuff that has nothing to do with Gage’s presentation here and other off topic stuff on other threads. Interestingly you post stuff relevant to Gage’s presentation on other threads.
QUOTE (Len Colby @ Sep 27 2007, 05:29 PM)
Forum rule (vi)
“Make sure your postings are relevant to the thread. Please start another thread if your comments do not belong to any existing threads.”
Peter why do you insist on spamming most of the 9/11 threads with irrelevant “truther” statements? Is it because you know that most of the specific claims don’t stand up to scrutiny and try to obscure that fact by turning every thread into one about 9/11 in toto so muddy that it is difficult to discuss anything in depth? Go ahead prove me right an continue to post stuff that has nothing to do with Gage’s presentation here and other off topic stuff on other threads. Interestingly you post stuff relevant to Gage’s presentation on other threads.
“Make sure your postings are relevant to the thread. Please start another thread if your comments do not belong to any existing threads.”
Peter why do you insist on spamming most of the 9/11 threads with irrelevant “truther” statements? Is it because you know that most of the specific claims don’t stand up to scrutiny and try to obscure that fact by turning every thread into one about 9/11 in toto so muddy that it is difficult to discuss anything in depth? Go ahead prove me right an continue to post stuff that has nothing to do with Gage’s presentation here and other off topic stuff on other threads. Interestingly you post stuff relevant to Gage’s presentation on other threads.
Colby is full of --it!
Everything Peter has posted is RELEVANT AND ON TARGET!
Jack
Peter the slide is too low resolution to see how exactly they match where did you find it?
What is the citation that one is the signature of thermate? What is the citation that the other was recovered from Ground Zero?
If this is the sample Dr. Jones supposedly received or retrieved from a sculpture supposedly made from WTC there are a few problems
1) It’s provenance is far from certain
2) The sculpture was welded; thermate is commonly used in welding. IIRC the guy who made it died and the person who contacted Jones was his widow so there is no way of confirming if the sample could have been contaminated after 9/11
3) IIRC There has been no independent confirmation of Jones’ findings and he hasn’t allowed others to have access to the sample
Not quite the poll showed that 16% of the population thinks the LIHOP and MIHOP theories are “very likely” and 20% “somewhat likely” saying maybe they let it happen doesn’t make one a “truther”
What is the citation that one is the signature of thermate? What is the citation that the other was recovered from Ground Zero?
If this is the sample Dr. Jones supposedly received or retrieved from a sculpture supposedly made from WTC there are a few problems
1) It’s provenance is far from certain
2) The sculpture was welded; thermate is commonly used in welding. IIRC the guy who made it died and the person who contacted Jones was his widow so there is no way of confirming if the sample could have been contaminated after 9/11
3) IIRC There has been no independent confirmation of Jones’ findings and he hasn’t allowed others to have access to the sample
QUOTE
the 911 turth movement - now at about 35% of the US - and growing
Not quite the poll showed that 16% of the population thinks the LIHOP and MIHOP theories are “very likely” and 20% “somewhat likely” saying maybe they let it happen doesn’t make one a “truther”
QUOTE (Jack White @ Sep 25 2007, 04:22 AM)
Burton believes that:
"If you hold a minority opinion, then your evidence should be above reproach"
AMAZING! ASTOUNDING! He thinks "TRUTHERS" should be held to a higher
standard than LIARS. What bias!
"If you hold a minority opinion, then your evidence should be above reproach"
AMAZING! ASTOUNDING! He thinks "TRUTHERS" should be held to a higher
standard than LIARS. What bias!
I suppose you could call it bias. I think that truth should be able to withstand any scrutiny. Anyone who proclaims something as being the truth should have no fear of that 'truth' being examined.
It reminds me of how you, and others, call people disinformation agents.
If a person states a fact, a fact which can be proven, then it doesn't matter who utters the fact. The fact IS, can withstand examination, and rather than hide from people who dispute it goes toward them, knowing it is a fact and incontrovertible.
Facts are stubborn things.
QUOTE (Evan Burton @ Sep 28 2007, 07:36 AM)
If a person states a fact, a fact which can be proven, then it doesn't matter who utters the fact. The fact IS, can withstand examination, and rather than hide from people who dispute it goes toward them, knowing it is a fact and incontrovertible.
Facts are stubborn things.
Facts are stubborn things.
What constitutes a fact, or proof can often be a very subjective judgement. An internet forum or website is far different than a court of law.
All the disagreements that occur here on a daily basis should be "proof" of that. People are stubborn too.
I expect the normal howls of protest, but I think that you Peter should be actually putting forward some type of major point rather than just posting material that is pro your view.
Do you think it would be acceptable for me to post material that simply supports my view? I might put forward a view and ask people to try and challenge it, but if I just post material which is pro my view...
The way things are going I might post a couple of threads to do with developments based on Apollo-era technology, or large quotes from websites which support my own view that 9/11 was nothing more than a terrorist action - nothing to do with Bush, the CIA, or even a New World Order.
If you have a point to make, could I ask you to simply make it? Otherwise we are going to clog up the Forum with long rants from all sides.
Please - be concise. An example might be:
Some people still deny the obvious - that 9/11 could not have happened as proposed by the 9/11 Commission Report. Those of who disagree with that report are often accused of not having experts to back our opinions; this is not so. There are many people, with qualifications in the fields, that believe the 9/11 report is wrong:
www.truthersitefortruth.org
anothertruthersite.net.
crossdressingtruthers.whaheyhey
etc, etc.
(please pardon my injection of humour; you can't be too serious all the time...)
Do you think it would be acceptable for me to post material that simply supports my view? I might put forward a view and ask people to try and challenge it, but if I just post material which is pro my view...
The way things are going I might post a couple of threads to do with developments based on Apollo-era technology, or large quotes from websites which support my own view that 9/11 was nothing more than a terrorist action - nothing to do with Bush, the CIA, or even a New World Order.
If you have a point to make, could I ask you to simply make it? Otherwise we are going to clog up the Forum with long rants from all sides.
Please - be concise. An example might be:
Some people still deny the obvious - that 9/11 could not have happened as proposed by the 9/11 Commission Report. Those of who disagree with that report are often accused of not having experts to back our opinions; this is not so. There are many people, with qualifications in the fields, that believe the 9/11 report is wrong:
www.truthersitefortruth.org
anothertruthersite.net.
crossdressingtruthers.whaheyhey
etc, etc.
(please pardon my injection of humour; you can't be too serious all the time...)
QUOTE (Michael Hogan @ Sep 28 2007, 10:35 PM)
QUOTE (Evan Burton @ Sep 28 2007, 07:36 AM)
If a person states a fact, a fact which can be proven, then it doesn't matter who utters the fact. The fact IS, can withstand examination, and rather than hide from people who dispute it goes toward them, knowing it is a fact and incontrovertible.
Facts are stubborn things.
Facts are stubborn things.
What constitutes a fact, or proof can often be a very subjective judgement. An internet forum or website is far different than a court of law.
All the disagreements that occur here on a daily basis should be "proof" of that. People are stubborn too.
That's quite true, but that it is why it important to try to differentiate between an opinion of some description, and a fact.
Continuing on my 9/11 theme, it would be an opinion that the proposed hijackers were capable of carrying out the manoeuvres required for aircraft to hit the targets. A qualified pilot may say yes, another qualified pilot may say no. You could have untrained people able to fly it, and other untrained people unable to fly it. It is not a condition which will always result in the same outcome.
A fact, on the other hand, is something that is repeatable in every case. Saying that a naked human being, with no flight aids, thrown off the top of a 100 foot+ building will eventually fall to the ground is fact.
That is why I do try to differentiate between the two. I try to differentiate between the subjective and the objective.
Now, on a side note Michael, you remind me of what in political terms the Democrats were in Australia. They were, in Don Chipp's words, there to "keep the bastards honest". Keep up the good work.
QUOTE (Evan Burton @ Sep 28 2007, 11:36 AM)
QUOTE (Jack White @ Sep 25 2007, 04:22 AM)
Burton believes that:
"If you hold a minority opinion, then your evidence should be above reproach"
AMAZING! ASTOUNDING! He thinks "TRUTHERS" should be held to a higher
standard than LIARS. What bias!
"If you hold a minority opinion, then your evidence should be above reproach"
AMAZING! ASTOUNDING! He thinks "TRUTHERS" should be held to a higher
standard than LIARS. What bias!
I suppose you could call it bias. I think that truth should be able to withstand any scrutiny. Anyone who proclaims something as being the truth should have no fear of that 'truth' being examined.
It reminds me of how you, and others, call people disinformation agents.
If a person states a fact, a fact which can be proven, then it doesn't matter who utters the fact. The fact IS, can withstand examination, and rather than hide from people who dispute it goes toward them, knowing it is a fact and incontrovertible.
Facts are stubborn things.
Burton LECTURING ON "FACTS" is laughable. He does not know the facts.
He demonstrates his bias and disregard for facts by calling me a LIAR in
every posting...an opinion, not fact. He is like the fox guarding the henhouse
saying...WHAT CHICKENS? I want to know why HE has a dog in this fight
anyway...why is an Australian suddenly an expert on the official story of 911?
Jack
I heard a two hour broadcast ( partly dvd and partly interview) on Gage's efforts yesterday. He was on TakingAim in NYC on Tuesday 10/16/07. You can listen to the whole thing here.
http://takingaimradio.com/shows/audio.html
HE SAID THAT SO FAR 195 LISCENSED ARCHITECTS AND ENGINERES HAVE SIGNED A STATEMENT OF SUPPORT AND JOINED HIS GROUP! HE IS DOING PRESENTATIONS TO ENTIRE ARCHITECTURE FIRMS, AND THEY ARE JOINING HIS GROUP. It seems like a rather informed tidal wave is building.
http://takingaimradio.com/shows/audio.html
HE SAID THAT SO FAR 195 LISCENSED ARCHITECTS AND ENGINERES HAVE SIGNED A STATEMENT OF SUPPORT AND JOINED HIS GROUP! HE IS DOING PRESENTATIONS TO ENTIRE ARCHITECTURE FIRMS, AND THEY ARE JOINING HIS GROUP. It seems like a rather informed tidal wave is building.
When thinking about what people have said, please also consider this webpage.
I have seen a lot of innuendo - some of which might be correct - but I haven't seen any evidence for it as yet.
Perhaps the neighbour, after admiring your TV, found someone who wanted to sell him the same model at a very cheap price. Perhaps the TV was stolen.... perhaps it might have been dropped. It might have been a display unit with lots of time on the clock and pretty much almost through it's service life. Perhaps your neighbour (who did not attend the same church as you) had a fellow traveller who owned a store which sold that unit, had floor stock they needed to clear, and gave it to a fellow parishioner at a good discount?
You can make a lot of assumptions if you don't know the facts.
Perhaps the neighbour, after admiring your TV, found someone who wanted to sell him the same model at a very cheap price. Perhaps the TV was stolen.... perhaps it might have been dropped. It might have been a display unit with lots of time on the clock and pretty much almost through it's service life. Perhaps your neighbour (who did not attend the same church as you) had a fellow traveller who owned a store which sold that unit, had floor stock they needed to clear, and gave it to a fellow parishioner at a good discount?
You can make a lot of assumptions if you don't know the facts.
QUOTE (Peter Lemkin @ Oct 19 2007, 07:28 PM)
Evan, you're just another of those IMO out to cast doubt....a technique used to discredit.
No, I simply look at the evidence and disagree with you. You can present contrary evidence - in fact I urge you to. Let everyone look at it, and consider it.
The people of "Patriots for Truth" (sorry, I forget if that is the actual name, or if it is something different but similar) present their version of the facts. That's great. Let's all hear all sides of the story.
I'm asking people to consider other sides of the argument. Consider the other side... research the propositions put by each side, THEN decide what you believe.
If one side is telling lies, then it will be shown up with time. Each side should make sure that any lies by the other side are exposed. truth will out. Facts are stubborn things.
QUOTE (Nathaniel Heidenheimer @ Oct 18 2007, 06:11 PM)
I heard a two hour broadcast ( partly dvd and partly interview) on Gage's efforts yesterday. He was on TakingAim in NYC on Tuesday 10/16/07. You can listen to the whole thing here.
http://takingaimradio.com/shows/audio.html
HE SAID THAT SO FAR 195 LISCENSED ARCHITECTS AND ENGINERES HAVE SIGNED A STATEMENT OF SUPPORT AND JOINED HIS GROUP! HE IS DOING PRESENTATIONS TO ENTIRE ARCHITECTURE FIRMS, AND THEY ARE JOINING HIS GROUP. It seems like a rather informed tidal wave is building.
http://takingaimradio.com/shows/audio.html
HE SAID THAT SO FAR 195 LISCENSED ARCHITECTS AND ENGINERES HAVE SIGNED A STATEMENT OF SUPPORT AND JOINED HIS GROUP! HE IS DOING PRESENTATIONS TO ENTIRE ARCHITECTURE FIRMS, AND THEY ARE JOINING HIS GROUP. It seems like a rather informed tidal wave is building.
You must have either misunderstood or he was exaggerating. His site lists 34 licensed architects,14 licensed civil engineers and 23 other types of licensed engineers. Not all of the 71 listed their license numbers so the total may be lower. I assume 195 is total membership.
http://www.ae911truth.org/supporters.php?g=ENG
The total membership of the AIA (Amer. Inst. Of Architects) and ASCE (Amer Soc. Of Civil Engineers) is well over 200,000 that’s not even counting electrical engineers, chemical engineers, mechanical engineers, aeronautical engineers etc it’s safe to assume that there are at least 1 million engineers and architects in the US. So whether he has 71 (or less) or 195 licensed engineers his group is just a ripple.
If someone compiled a list of all the (mostly structural) engineers who contributed to the various investigations of the collapses and/or authored papers or articles about them you would have a comparable if not larger number.
The relevant professional to investigate the collapses is a structural engineer only three are members of Gage’s group, one never worked on buildings only oil rigs (Pegelow), another (Kollar) works for a company that mostly designs 1 story buildings and makes no mention of anything more than 3 stories tall on its site, the third (Michael T. Donley) got his degree from an obscure school in Hackensack NJ, didn’t list his license number or provide a bio but runs a company (DONLY ENGINEERING GROUP) that generates Google hits in a handful of web directories and its own website. There is no evidence Kollar or Donley read any of the technical reports. The former made no mention of them in his statement but rather cited “the 911 collapse was a controlled demolition is the recorded explosions on the 9/11 Eyewitness DVD. The explosions, along with the uniformity and totality of the collapses, when added to the 100's of so-called coincidences on, before and after that day” the latter didn’t make a statement. Pegelow only seems to have superficially read the NIST report and spends most of his enegy debunking the ASCE/FEMA report which was superceded by it. He makes numerous erroneous statements like “the World Trade Center (WTC) towers were designed to withstand multiple impacts by Boeing 707 aircraft”.
Forget ripple AE911T is a drop in the ocean of relevant expertise,
QUOTE (Peter Lemkin @ Oct 19 2007, 06:28 AM)
Evan, you're just another of those IMO out to cast doubt....a technique used to discredit.
Peter of course only objects to casting doubt on theories he believes in
QUOTE
Where is the evidence that any part of the official version of 911 remotely makes logical, not to mention physics, sense?!?! I've seen none.
One can't see what they choose not to. The qualified experts whov've actually studied the facts rather than "truther" misinfo have no problems with "the official version of 911 ".
QUOTE (Len Colby @ Oct 19 2007, 08:11 AM)
One can't see what they choose not to. The qualified experts whov've actually studied the facts rather than "truther" misinfo have no problems with "the official version of 911 ".
That statement is far too general, vague and all-encompassing to have any real meaning.
QUOTE (Len Colby @ Oct 19 2007, 10:11 PM)
QUOTE (Peter Lemkin @ Oct 19 2007, 06:28 AM)
Evan, you're just another of those IMO out to cast doubt....a technique used to discredit.
Peter of course only objects to casting doubt on theories he believes in
You noticed that too? I am fine that Peter disagrees with my assessment, and he should post whatever he believes supports his case. By the same token, though, I expect to be able to support my views without any denigration of those views - as should anyone.
QUOTE (Peter Lemkin @ Oct 19 2007, 03:49 PM)
What WE THE PEOPLE (THE REAL 'EXPERTS' THAT MATTER) THINK:
CNN Poll: 89% Believe US Government Covering Up 9/11
Zogby Poll: Half of New Yorkers Believe Government Complicity in 9/11
Learn to live with it [in the MOCKINGBIRD/PR/OFFICIAL-SPIN/DISINFORMATION BORG], as the numbers are GROWING!
http://www.ae911truth.org/info/20
http://www.oilempire.us/reichstag-fire.html
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/
http://physics911.net/
...and hundreds [and growing] sites
THIS IS WAR - HUMAN CIVILIZATION V THE BORG
CNN Poll: 89% Believe US Government Covering Up 9/11
Zogby Poll: Half of New Yorkers Believe Government Complicity in 9/11
Learn to live with it [in the MOCKINGBIRD/PR/OFFICIAL-SPIN/DISINFORMATION BORG], as the numbers are GROWING!
http://www.ae911truth.org/info/20
http://www.oilempire.us/reichstag-fire.html
http://www.patriotsquestion911.com/
http://physics911.net/
...and hundreds [and growing] sites
THIS IS WAR - HUMAN CIVILIZATION V THE BORG
It's pretty clear exactly how bankrupt Lemkins position is when he pimps an INTERNET QUICK VOTE from CNN to try and show support for his position.
Peter - another example:
http://www.debunking911.com/jones.htm
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/...Eagar-0112.html
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/introduction
I haven't said anything, but my links speak for me.... or do they?
What do they say?
http://www.debunking911.com/jones.htm
http://www.tms.org/pubs/journals/JOM/0112/...Eagar-0112.html
http://wtc7lies.googlepages.com/introduction
I haven't said anything, but my links speak for me.... or do they?
What do they say?
According to the NSF in 2001 (the last year for which I could find statistic) there were 1,256,400 engineers employed in the US*. This doesn’t of course count retired engineers or people with engineering degrees employed in other professions. The population growth rate in the US is 0.92 %**. 6 x 0.92 plus compounding would give us a 5.5 % increase in the population. Assuming the number of engineers grew in equal proportion there should be 1,327, 366 currently working in the US.
* http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf05313/pdf/tab1.pdf
** http://geography.about.com/library/cia/blcusa.htm
According to a recent (Aug 2006) Scripts-Howard poll 16% of the population thinks it’s ‘ "very likely"…that federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or took no action to stop them.’
http://www.shns.com/shns/g_index2.cfm?acti...PIRACY-08-02-06
If there were any truth to the “truthers” claims that the collapse theory violates the laws of physics I would expect engineers to doubt the collapse theory and thus the “ official” 9/11 story at a higher rate than the general populace but fro simplicity’s sake I’ll calculate for 16%. 16 % of 1,256,400 is 201,024, the same percentage of the adjusted number of engineers is 212,379. These are the minimum numbers of American engineers who should think it’s “very likely” that US government officials made or let 9/11 happen.
Of course not all of them would join Gage’s group but what would be a reasonable number to expect, 10%, 5%, 1%, 0.1%? Currently his group lists 114 degreed and/or licensed engineers, according to their bios at least 8 are retired and 6 don’t work as engineers, this leaves us a round 100. Most don’t provide any biographical information, some are listed as “pending verification” thus the actual number of people who would be considered “employed…engineers” by the NSF is less than 100. 100 is 0.0470856346 percent of 212,379. Ironically one said “All the engineers who question this (especially Building 7), can't be wrong.” But what about the larger number of engineers who support the collapse theory? The number of engineers who question it isn’t impressively large but shockingly small.
http://www.ae911truth.org/supporters.php?g=_AES_ (only 72 claimed to be licensed)
It is interesting to note that only three of them mention the NIST report but their comments are so superficial that it isn’t clear if the actually read the reports themselves rather than just critiques of it. This to me suggests a high degree of crack-pottery amongst the group’s members. If they are engineers and have their doubts why not read the report before drawing their conclusions? If they read the report why not mention it in their statements? Several of them repeat the fallacy that the towers fell in free fall time, shouldn’t they have made sure they had their facts straight? Can we discount their opinions because there are based on a false premise?
* http://www.nsf.gov/statistics/nsf05313/pdf/tab1.pdf
** http://geography.about.com/library/cia/blcusa.htm
According to a recent (Aug 2006) Scripts-Howard poll 16% of the population thinks it’s ‘ "very likely"…that federal officials either participated in the attacks on the World Trade Center and the Pentagon or took no action to stop them.’
http://www.shns.com/shns/g_index2.cfm?acti...PIRACY-08-02-06
If there were any truth to the “truthers” claims that the collapse theory violates the laws of physics I would expect engineers to doubt the collapse theory and thus the “ official” 9/11 story at a higher rate than the general populace but fro simplicity’s sake I’ll calculate for 16%. 16 % of 1,256,400 is 201,024, the same percentage of the adjusted number of engineers is 212,379. These are the minimum numbers of American engineers who should think it’s “very likely” that US government officials made or let 9/11 happen.
Of course not all of them would join Gage’s group but what would be a reasonable number to expect, 10%, 5%, 1%, 0.1%? Currently his group lists 114 degreed and/or licensed engineers, according to their bios at least 8 are retired and 6 don’t work as engineers, this leaves us a round 100. Most don’t provide any biographical information, some are listed as “pending verification” thus the actual number of people who would be considered “employed…engineers” by the NSF is less than 100. 100 is 0.0470856346 percent of 212,379. Ironically one said “All the engineers who question this (especially Building 7), can't be wrong.” But what about the larger number of engineers who support the collapse theory? The number of engineers who question it isn’t impressively large but shockingly small.
http://www.ae911truth.org/supporters.php?g=_AES_ (only 72 claimed to be licensed)
It is interesting to note that only three of them mention the NIST report but their comments are so superficial that it isn’t clear if the actually read the reports themselves rather than just critiques of it. This to me suggests a high degree of crack-pottery amongst the group’s members. If they are engineers and have their doubts why not read the report before drawing their conclusions? If they read the report why not mention it in their statements? Several of them repeat the fallacy that the towers fell in free fall time, shouldn’t they have made sure they had their facts straight? Can we discount their opinions because there are based on a false premise?
QUOTE (Peter Lemkin @ Oct 27 2007, 01:12 PM)
Two hour audio or with slide presentation by Richard Gage AIA here:
http://www.kpfa.org/archives/index.php?arch=22935
[so you can judge for yourself...and not the negative attempts of those who only support the official version of everything....including the JFK assassination. The official defenders are desperate now, as they know that the whole house of cards (America today run by the secret Oligarchy) will collapse en toto if the truth of 911 comes out...as it is....]
http://www.kpfa.org/archives/index.php?arch=22935
[so you can judge for yourself...and not the negative attempts of those who only support the official version of everything....including the JFK assassination. The official defenders are desperate now, as they know that the whole house of cards (America today run by the secret Oligarchy) will collapse en toto if the truth of 911 comes out...as it is....]
Noting is more desperate than continuing to post the link to a slide show that has been shown in many posts to contain massive errors.....
I have set a number of posts from Peter and Craig as invisible.
Peter, please raise the issue directly with the Admins, not publicly. John or Andy can take the necessary action, and make the posts visible again if required.
Craig, I have set your posts invisible because of the quotes within them, not because of the reply content.
Peter, please raise the issue directly with the Admins, not publicly. John or Andy can take the necessary action, and make the posts visible again if required.
Craig, I have set your posts invisible because of the quotes within them, not because of the reply content.
Gage’s group as of a few minutes ago only has 37 licensed architects and one landscape architect listed three are retired only 31 (including the landscape architect) gave their license # s so that leaves us 30 who can be confirmed.
http://www.ae911truth.org/joinus.php
This seriously calls into doubt the following claims made by Gage on the page where he hits people up to donate to his “Sponsor an Architect or Engineer! Buy the A/E's Lunch and feed them the 9/11 Truth!” campaign He say his group “bring(s) to the A/E firm(s) [“in the S.F. Bay Area and beyond”] our fascinating technical presentation on the "collapses" [and] a good lunch”
http://www.ae911truth.org/donate.php?b=mih
Of the 33 working architects (not counting Gage and a retiree) only 17 are from “the S.F. Bay Area and beyond”. One each are from Fresno, Los Angeles and San Diego cities 190 – 505 miles from San Francisco, 3 are from New York the rest are from states where they are the only or only one of two members. Even assuming all 17 joined via one of his lunches (and not via the internet or word of word etc like the others) after all this time has Gage only made his presentation to 23 (75%) or 25 (75% of 90%) architects? If so that would suggest that most firms he approaches or most of the architects who work at them have no interest in the goods he is peddling and that even if gets a “70 to 80%” sign up rate it is an audience predisposed to his messages. 25 architects would be a small to medium firm according to Gage. But on the linked page he seems to indicate he is addressing many more, when asks people to donate money!
Even assuming no economy of scale why is he hitting people up to sponsor luncheons for 55 ($ 500) or 100 ($ 900) architects if he has only spoken to a total of at most 25 presumably from more than one firm? Something is wrong with his numbers!
EDIT -typo fixed
http://www.ae911truth.org/joinus.php
This seriously calls into doubt the following claims made by Gage on the page where he hits people up to donate to his “Sponsor an Architect or Engineer! Buy the A/E's Lunch and feed them the 9/11 Truth!” campaign He say his group “bring(s) to the A/E firm(s) [“in the S.F. Bay Area and beyond”] our fascinating technical presentation on the "collapses" [and] a good lunch”
QUOTE
3. We usually get about 100% who agree with us that there are very serious questions about the official story.
4. And we get about 90% who agree with us that the buildings were indeed brought down by controlled demolition.
5. Of those, about 70 to 80% feel comfortable enough joining us by signing our petition "calling upon Congress for a truly independent investigation into the collapses".
4. And we get about 90% who agree with us that the buildings were indeed brought down by controlled demolition.
5. Of those, about 70 to 80% feel comfortable enough joining us by signing our petition "calling upon Congress for a truly independent investigation into the collapses".
http://www.ae911truth.org/donate.php?b=mih
Of the 33 working architects (not counting Gage and a retiree) only 17 are from “the S.F. Bay Area and beyond”. One each are from Fresno, Los Angeles and San Diego cities 190 – 505 miles from San Francisco, 3 are from New York the rest are from states where they are the only or only one of two members. Even assuming all 17 joined via one of his lunches (and not via the internet or word of word etc like the others) after all this time has Gage only made his presentation to 23 (75%) or 25 (75% of 90%) architects? If so that would suggest that most firms he approaches or most of the architects who work at them have no interest in the goods he is peddling and that even if gets a “70 to 80%” sign up rate it is an audience predisposed to his messages. 25 architects would be a small to medium firm according to Gage. But on the linked page he seems to indicate he is addressing many more, when asks people to donate money!
QUOTE
Donate $ 9.00 Take an Architect or Engineer to Lunch!
Donate $ 50.00 Take a few A/E's out to Lunch!
Donate $ 90.00 Take a small A/E firm to Lunch!
Donate $ 500.00 Take a medium A/E firm to Lunch!
Donate $ 900.00 Take a large A/E firm to lunch!
Donate $ 50.00 Take a few A/E's out to Lunch!
Donate $ 90.00 Take a small A/E firm to Lunch!
Donate $ 500.00 Take a medium A/E firm to Lunch!
Donate $ 900.00 Take a large A/E firm to lunch!
Even assuming no economy of scale why is he hitting people up to sponsor luncheons for 55 ($ 500) or 100 ($ 900) architects if he has only spoken to a total of at most 25 presumably from more than one firm? Something is wrong with his numbers!
EDIT -typo fixed
Richard Gage constantly reminds people he is a licensed architect his name rarely appears without being followed by the initials AIA as if it were some special honor or a degree. He is calling into question the conclusions of numerous eminently qualified structural engineers from various studies who closely studied the collapses some from schools like MIT, Northwestern and UC Berkley, conclusion with which the WTC lead structural engineer and construction manager concurred. So how relevant is his expertise?
To make a long story short, not very. He posted his CV on line. He was the “project leader”/ “teem architect” on projects like apparently single story, gas stations, high schools, fast food restaurants and even a airport terminal in Saudi Arabia and a total of five projects which included 2 story structures one of which also included a single 3 story building. Nothing that would have considered tall even in the 19th century before steel framing was utilized. Even IF he had designed tall buildings, the structural engineers rather than the architect would have done the calculations about the loads the building should have been able to withstand.
http://members.shaw.ca/loudstudios/GageCV.pdf
One of the handful of structural engineers he signed up was his octogenarian boss Hakul (sp?) Akol who as noted elsewhere earned a engineers license probably in the 1950’s but seems to have worked as an architect. If Mr. Gage’s work is reflective Akol and Yoshi architects rarely, if ever, design multistory buildings.
To make a long story short, not very. He posted his CV on line. He was the “project leader”/ “teem architect” on projects like apparently single story, gas stations, high schools, fast food restaurants and even a airport terminal in Saudi Arabia and a total of five projects which included 2 story structures one of which also included a single 3 story building. Nothing that would have considered tall even in the 19th century before steel framing was utilized. Even IF he had designed tall buildings, the structural engineers rather than the architect would have done the calculations about the loads the building should have been able to withstand.
http://members.shaw.ca/loudstudios/GageCV.pdf
One of the handful of structural engineers he signed up was his octogenarian boss Hakul (sp?) Akol who as noted elsewhere earned a engineers license probably in the 1950’s but seems to have worked as an architect. If Mr. Gage’s work is reflective Akol and Yoshi architects rarely, if ever, design multistory buildings.
QUOTE (Peter Lemkin @ Apr 5 2008, 03:48 AM)
How the Towers Fell http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_7huSyxV_1o
Despite the Apologists for the Official Conspiracy Theory the general 911 Truth version fits - the official does not. Decide for yourself. The Borg [those who try to debunk and bebase those who would dare to question American, UK and Israeli Oligarchy and their Intelligence's Official Conspiracy Theories] don't want you to think for yourself - don't want you to decide for yourself - they want you to just swallow the Big Lie they developed [as so many times before] and shut up, consume and die. Die some of us have, and more of us will...but on our feet - not on our knees. Truth - and facing it unflinchingly - will set us all free - not groveling before the rich and powerful who invent these fictions as propaganda figleaves for their psychopathology of power, enrichment and control.
Despite the Apologists for the Official Conspiracy Theory the general 911 Truth version fits - the official does not. Decide for yourself. The Borg [those who try to debunk and bebase those who would dare to question American, UK and Israeli Oligarchy and their Intelligence's Official Conspiracy Theories] don't want you to think for yourself - don't want you to decide for yourself - they want you to just swallow the Big Lie they developed [as so many times before] and shut up, consume and die. Die some of us have, and more of us will...but on our feet - not on our knees. Truth - and facing it unflinchingly - will set us all free - not groveling before the rich and powerful who invent these fictions as propaganda figleaves for their psychopathology of power, enrichment and control.
http://educationforum.ipbhost.com/index.ph...st&p=142126
Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth Lies
One would hope that an organisation that claims to be "for truth" would make a point of being truthful but as I pointed out last year Gage's claimed recruiting success rate didn't match up with his membership. Remember the cliche about the more thing change the more they stay the same? Gage once again is making claims about recruitment that don't match up with his current membership totals.
The latest news on the group's site is their attendance at the American Institute of Architects annual convention which took place April 29 - May 2 at the Moscone Convention Center in San Francisco. Gage claims "we spoke to hundreds of architects and must have added about 50 to our petitioners over the course of 3 days"
The problem is that there is an April 23 (2009) press release on the page which proclaimed "More than 640 Architects & Engineers for 9/11 Truth (AE911Truth) are calling for a new, independent investigation into the destruction of the World Trade Center" and a counter at the top of the page (as of a minute or two ago) indicates the group is made up of "647 architectural and engineering professionals" In other words in the last 15 days they've added at most 6 new "architectural and engineering professionals" they're about 45 members short of Gage's claim. He also claims they had "a structural engineer who is also an architect stop by and sign our petition who has worked on 50 to 60 story buildings" and "also had the AIA Chapter CEO in Virginia sign the petition" but no people meeting this description have been added to the site
The convention took place 6 -8 days ago which is more than enough time to check credentials and add names to their list. Live verification would be easier than over the Net signers could be asked to show photo ID and their status as architects or engineers could quickly be verified online, the Moscone Center has WiFi access.
That was not the only example of convention related dishonesty from AE911 for Truth . At 6:57 into this video from the 1st day of the convention Gage starts interviewing J. Marx Ayres AE911T's CFO. About 40 seconds into the interview he said "...I'm an engineer with lots of experience and I've designed a lot of tall buildings it might add a lot of credibility to the organization". The problem is Mr. Ayres has never ever designed a building tall or short in his life.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KZ0quEOmUfw...feature=related
Mr Ayres as his own website points out has "over sixty years experience in the design analysis and construction of mechanical service systems for all types of buildings and facilities. Expert in heating, ventilating and air conditioning (HVAC), plumbing and fire protection systems." His CV paints the same picture "Mr. Ayres is a nationally recognized expert in building air conditioning design and analysis, energy conservation, thermal energy storage, commissioning of HVAC systems, and earthquake damage to building mechanical structures." While Gage did introduce him as a mechanical it quite possible that viewers would have missed this or not know that mechanical engineers don't design buildings. Gage made no effort to correct him.
http://jmayres.com/
http://jmayres.com/curriculum_vitae.html
This is not the 1st time Ayres and Gage have confused the nature of the former's experience. In his declaration for AE911T he said:
"I am a consulting mechanical engineer with over 55 years of experience in the design and construction of all types of buildings including high-rise office towers. I am an expert in heating ventilation and air conditioning (HVAC) and fire protection for buildings..."
Previously on the same page Gage wrote:
"Mr. Ayres is a nationally recognized expert in building air conditioning design and analysis, energy conservation, thermal energy storage, commissioning of HVAC systems, and earthquake damage to building mechanical systems, with over 55 years of experience. Co-founder of one of the largest building engineering firms in Los Angeles, Mr. Ayres has been in responsible charge of the design of hundreds of major building projects, including high rise offices, commercial centers..."
http://www.ae911truth.org/announce/4
This fits in with a pattern from many leading truther sites, including AE911Truth of being less than straight forward about the credentials of their supporters. Commonly they would describe...
...Kevin Ryan as a "former lab manager and scientist at Underwriters Labs, the company that tested the steel used in the World Trade Center buildings, was fired by UL when he went public with information about the cover-up" without explaining that he worked for water testing company bought by UL shortly before 9/11.
http://www.ae911truth.net/store/product_in...60d8c7fa7d478c4
...Robin Hordon a former air traffic controller "posted to Boston Center where he worked for eleven years." without making it clear he last worked as an ATC over 20 years before 9/11.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/decem...ccontroller.htm
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2008/...ack-planes.html
...Jeff King as an "MIT engineer" without saying got a degree in electrical engineering from the school in the 1970's and a few years later enrolled in medical school and has worked as a family practicioner ever since.
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/septe.../030907King.htm
http://whatreallyhappened.com/WRHARTICLES/seekin.php
http://www.buzzflash.net/story.php?id=27005
QUOTE (Len Colby @ Jan 2 2008, 03:15 PM)
Gage’s group as of a few minutes ago only has 37 licensed architects and one landscape architect listed three are retired only 31 (including the landscape architect) gave their license # s so that leaves us 30 who can be confirmed.
http://www.ae911truth.org/joinus.php
This seriously calls into doubt the following claims made by Gage on the page where he hits people up to donate to his “Sponsor an Architect or Engineer! Buy the A/E's Lunch and feed them the 9/11 Truth!” campaign He say his group “bring(s) to the A/E firm(s) [“in the S.F. Bay Area and beyond”] our fascinating technical presentation on the "collapses" [and] a good lunch”
http://www.ae911truth.org/donate.php?b=mih
Of the 33 working architects (not counting Gage and a retiree) only 17 are from “the S.F. Bay Area and beyond”. One each are from Fresno, Los Angeles and San Diego cities 190 – 505 miles from San Francisco, 3 are from New York the rest are from states where they are the only or only one of two members. Even assuming all 17 joined via one of his lunches (and not via the internet or word of word etc like the others) after all this time has Gage only made his presentation to 23 (75%) or 25 (75% of 90%) architects? If so that would suggest that most firms he approaches or most of the architects who work at them have no interest in the goods he is peddling and that even if gets a “70 to 80%” sign up rate it is an audience predisposed to his messages. 25 architects would be a small to medium firm according to Gage. But on the linked page he seems to indicate he is addressing many more, when asks people to donate money!
Even assuming no economy of scale why is he hitting people up to sponsor luncheons for 55 ($ 500) or 100 ($ 900) architects if he has only spoken to a total of at most 25 presumably from more than one firm? Something is wrong with his numbers!
EDIT -typo fixed
http://www.ae911truth.org/joinus.php
This seriously calls into doubt the following claims made by Gage on the page where he hits people up to donate to his “Sponsor an Architect or Engineer! Buy the A/E's Lunch and feed them the 9/11 Truth!” campaign He say his group “bring(s) to the A/E firm(s) [“in the S.F. Bay Area and beyond”] our fascinating technical presentation on the "collapses" [and] a good lunch”
QUOTE
3. We usually get about 100% who agree with us that there are very serious questions about the official story.
4. And we get about 90% who agree with us that the buildings were indeed brought down by controlled demolition.
5. Of those, about 70 to 80% feel comfortable enough joining us by signing our petition "calling upon Congress for a truly independent investigation into the collapses".
4. And we get about 90% who agree with us that the buildings were indeed brought down by controlled demolition.
5. Of those, about 70 to 80% feel comfortable enough joining us by signing our petition "calling upon Congress for a truly independent investigation into the collapses".
http://www.ae911truth.org/donate.php?b=mih
Of the 33 working architects (not counting Gage and a retiree) only 17 are from “the S.F. Bay Area and beyond”. One each are from Fresno, Los Angeles and San Diego cities 190 – 505 miles from San Francisco, 3 are from New York the rest are from states where they are the only or only one of two members. Even assuming all 17 joined via one of his lunches (and not via the internet or word of word etc like the others) after all this time has Gage only made his presentation to 23 (75%) or 25 (75% of 90%) architects? If so that would suggest that most firms he approaches or most of the architects who work at them have no interest in the goods he is peddling and that even if gets a “70 to 80%” sign up rate it is an audience predisposed to his messages. 25 architects would be a small to medium firm according to Gage. But on the linked page he seems to indicate he is addressing many more, when asks people to donate money!
QUOTE
Donate $ 9.00 Take an Architect or Engineer to Lunch!
Donate $ 50.00 Take a few A/E's out to Lunch!
Donate $ 90.00 Take a small A/E firm to Lunch!
Donate $ 500.00 Take a medium A/E firm to Lunch!
Donate $ 900.00 Take a large A/E firm to lunch!
Donate $ 50.00 Take a few A/E's out to Lunch!
Donate $ 90.00 Take a small A/E firm to Lunch!
Donate $ 500.00 Take a medium A/E firm to Lunch!
Donate $ 900.00 Take a large A/E firm to lunch!
Even assuming no economy of scale why is he hitting people up to sponsor luncheons for 55 ($ 500) or 100 ($ 900) architects if he has only spoken to a total of at most 25 presumably from more than one firm? Something is wrong with his numbers!
EDIT -typo fixed
------
Well Im glad that the Official 9/11 Commission's Conspiracy Theory-- now completely discredited even by the comments of people who directed it-- was paid for by tax dollars I presume? That way we tax payers could pay for their lunch enabeling them to write a report that was more objectively mental sewage.
What a stunning level of propaganda we have reached in this society! We have MUCH more time and money being spent on examining the death of a teacher in a space shuttle than what is given as the public justification of the complete redirection of I dunno Seven trilliion dollars in spending over the next ten years. It stuns me how many people with so much knowledge of how disinformation works vis a vis the Kennedy Assassination, are completely unwilling to say or type anything NOT IN SUPPORT OF ANY ONE ALTERNATIVE THEORY, BUT RATHER OVER THE SIMPLE OBJECTIVE FACT THAT THERE HAS NEVER BEEN A REAL INVESTIGATION!
Of course the predictable response to this will be to as quickly as possible return the discussion to one of the alternative theories so nobody notices the obvious truth of this point, WHICH WAS NOT AT ALL ABOUT ONE OF THE ALTERNATIVE THEORIES, but rather about the fact that there has never been a real investigation at all.
By the way I would like to include myself in that last criticism as it is becomming more and more clear to me that I have not been speaking out about 9/11 enough, and that the climate of noxious namecalling created by some can even have the effect of making people who strongly feel that there should be AT LEAST ONE INVESTIGATION hold their tongue in order to avoid the poop-storm that will surely follow.
So Nate No reaction to Gage's lies?
The "people who directed" 9/11 Commission "completely discredited " their report? Can you provide any citations to back that claim?
QUOTE (Nathaniel Heidenheimer @ May 13 2009, 02:14 PM)
Well Im glad that the Official 9/11 Commission's Conspiracy Theory-- now completely discredited even by the comments of people who directed it
The "people who directed" 9/11 Commission "completely discredited " their report? Can you provide any citations to back that claim?
QUOTE (Len Colby @ May 13 2009, 09:03 PM)
So Nate No reaction to Gage's lies?
The "people who directed" 9/11 Commission "completely discredited " their report? Can you provide any citations to back that claim?
QUOTE (Nathaniel Heidenheimer @ May 13 2009, 02:14 PM)
Well Im glad that the Official 9/11 Commission's Conspiracy Theory-- now completely discredited even by the comments of people who directed it
The "people who directed" 9/11 Commission "completely discredited " their report? Can you provide any citations to back that claim?
--------------
OF COURSE LEN: WILL DIG THEM OUT WHEN I HAVE A MINUTE AROUND MAY 25-35 TIME PERIOD. MY papers are running a bit late. Go ahead and take this as sure fire proof that I cant back up my comments. like you did with My Amy Goodman post that I also plan on spending more time researching which is why I cant do it now.
BY THE WAY LEN , PLAN ON BACKING UP MY STATEMENTS NOT YOUR TRANSLITTER OF THEM
TRANSLITTER-- I LIKE THAT. Its what you do when you rerephrase other peoples quotes. Was that Straw Dog factory in Recife funded by Alliance For Progress Funds? Must have been after Rocky and Thomas Mann took over!
Peter thanks for posting that article where gage makes several questionable claims:
Over 20,000 Architects at SF AIA Convention Come Face to Face With 9/11 Truth
But only 0.055% or less joined his group
The convention ended 2 weeks ago, he now claims to have 652 architects and engineers, a week before the convention he said he has "over 640". Even assuming that he meant 641 and that all the new A's & E's were architects from the convention he has only added 11.
http://www.ae911truth.org/
Funny he never tells us the guys name, there is no sign of him on the petition page. The group only has 8 US structural engineers (1 unlicensed) and 6 in other countries
http://www.ae911truth.org/signpetition.php
No sign of him either, Gage neglected to add that they guy is NOT an architect. (See my blog)
QUOTE (Peter Lemkin @ May 14 2009, 04:20 AM)
Over 20,000 Architects at SF AIA Convention Come Face to Face With 9/11 Truth
But only 0.055% or less joined his group
QUOTE
...we spoke to hundreds of architects and must have added about 50 to our petitioners over the course of 3 days.
The convention ended 2 weeks ago, he now claims to have 652 architects and engineers, a week before the convention he said he has "over 640". Even assuming that he meant 641 and that all the new A's & E's were architects from the convention he has only added 11.
http://www.ae911truth.org/
QUOTE
We have a structural engineer who is also an architect stop by and sign our petition who has worked on 50 to 60 story buildings.
Funny he never tells us the guys name, there is no sign of him on the petition page. The group only has 8 US structural engineers (1 unlicensed) and 6 in other countries
http://www.ae911truth.org/signpetition.php
QUOTE
We also had the AIA Chapter CEO in Virginia sign the petition
No sign of him either, Gage neglected to add that they guy is NOT an architect. (See my blog)
QUOTE (Nathaniel Heidenheimer @ May 14 2009, 09:30 AM)
BY THE WAY LEN , PLAN ON BACKING UP MY STATEMENTS NOT YOUR TRANSLITTER OF THEM
TRANSLITTER-- I LIKE THAT. Its what you do when you rerephrase other peoples quotes.
TRANSLITTER-- I LIKE THAT. Its what you do when you rerephrase other peoples quotes.
Why can't you just own up to the import of you're own words.
You live in Park Slope don't you? Did you ever go for a beer at the "Landmark"?
Peter'
I can't send this via PM as your mailbox is full.
You have posted the above whistleblower interview in a thread by itself and in this thread.
Are you happy for me to delete the post from this thread? It seems duplication and not specifically relevant to this thread - especially when there is a separate thread dedicated to the post.
Thanks,
Evan
I can't send this via PM as your mailbox is full.
You have posted the above whistleblower interview in a thread by itself and in this thread.
Are you happy for me to delete the post from this thread? It seems duplication and not specifically relevant to this thread - especially when there is a separate thread dedicated to the post.
Thanks,
Evan
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.