From Richard Gage, AIA...

[Evan Burton]

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.

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.

[Jack White]

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!

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 xxxx 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

[Nathaniel Heidenheimer]

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.

[Evan Burton]

When thinking about what people have said, please also consider this webpage.

[Evan Burton]

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.

Edited October 19, 2007 by Evan Burton

[Evan Burton]

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.

[Len Colby]

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.

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,

[Len Colby]

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

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 ".

[Michael Hogan]

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.

[Evan Burton]

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.

[Craig Lamson]

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

 

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.

Edited October 19, 2007 by Craig Lamson

[Evan Burton]

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?

[Len Colby]

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?

[Craig Lamson]

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....]

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.....

[Evan Burton]

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.