AE911Truth to be at AIA, Washington DC July 14-16 [Archive]

BigAl

6th July 2009, 05:19 AM

It appears that AIA is having a meeting in D.C.

http://www.ae911truth.org/events/dcconvention/

... We will host a 10' x 10' exhibit booth at the DC Convention of the American Institute of Architects (AIA) – July 14, 15, and 16. We will be speaking to several hundred architects over the three-day period and giving them DVDs and brochures. We hope to sign up at least one hundred more architects on our website! Consider flying/driving to DC and helping us in our booth if you are in the area. You would need to competently convey the essential points of the explosive evidence at the 3 World Trade Center high-rises - while wearing professional attire. To find out more or RSVP, contact Dave Slesinger at 410-499-5403 and/or davidslesinger (at) yahoo.com.

We will also host room #141 in the Convention Center where our new 30-minute version of 9/11: Blueprint for Truth - Companion Edition will be playing every hour on the hour followed by live Q&A. We are making major inroads into the building professional community with these AIA conventions. ...

fitzgibbon

6th July 2009, 05:25 AM

Major what? Considering the numbers he claims for membership could be a rounding error, you'll pardon me if I laugh. Nice to see someone doing a fantastic imitation of a snakeoil salesman.

peteweaver

6th July 2009, 05:26 AM

If anything, it'll give real architects something to laugh at.

~enigma~

6th July 2009, 05:28 AM

Has Jref become AE911Truth east or something? I mean they get almost as much advertising here.

ETA - Just looking at 2 sites, LCF has 1 thread with 0 replies and 911 blogger has 1 post with 3 replies. Jref already has 3 and I bet by the time I get home from work it will be about 20.

Justin39640

6th July 2009, 09:26 AM

is Heiwa gonna be there?
im sure many of the "29" (lol) would want to be at an event such as this

if they come to NY i would want to go to see the reaction in a more public forum than a private lecture
esp surrounded by their peers

Bobert

6th July 2009, 04:24 PM

Wow I give credit to RG for at least being able to afford a spot.
Those booths at some conventions aint cheap!

cyclonic

6th July 2009, 07:53 PM

"And if you haven't yet, please join the family of Sustaining Members as well, so that we can continue the winning streak that we are on. We must have an average of $35/month per member to realize our goals toward the awakening of the A/E profession and a real WTC investigation. Where do you fit into the picture? $10/mo? $100/mo? or more? Please find your giving level and claim it!
DON'T KEEP US CRAWLING TOWARD THE FINISH LINE OF A REAL INVESTIGATION WHEN WE CAN RUN IN TRIUMPHANTLY AND SEIZE IT"

http://www.ae911truth.org/events/dcconvention/

Go on twoofers give more money, i want to see tricky dick run and seize it!
:eye-poppi:eye-poppi:eye-poppi

BigAl

12th July 2009, 02:18 PM

Juts a bump to remind people of this AIA meeting.

Sword_Of_Truth

12th July 2009, 02:21 PM

deep

12th July 2009, 03:36 PM

If anything, it'll give real architects something to laugh at.

Unless they're one of the many "real architects" who have already signed the petition.

triforcharity

12th July 2009, 09:38 PM

Deep,

I think a saw a Haywood J Blome on there, please tell me he is real!!! LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!! TOOO FUNNNNYYYY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

R.Mackey

12th July 2009, 09:46 PM

My personal favorite was Mills M. Kay Mackey (http://www.opednews.com/populum/diarypage.php?did=7524), of Colorado (naturally).

No, it wasn't me.

Predictably, deep44 fled for the hills the last time (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=114759) this little charlie foxtrot was explained to him. Nonetheless, he'll still harp about their membership... Seems to be his entire M.O., judging by his other recent posts here, which are indistinguishable from posts made years ago.

rikzilla

13th July 2009, 01:39 AM

What a colossal waste of time! The essential points of the explosives evidence @ WTC is that there isn't any. Unless of course it was the sooper secret stealth explosives that make no sound. God what a joke!

-z

deep

13th July 2009, 06:50 AM

Predictably, deep44 fled for the hills the last time (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=114759) this little charlie foxtrot was explained to him. Nonetheless, he'll still harp about their membership... Seems to be his entire M.O., judging by his other recent posts here, which are indistinguishable from posts made years ago.

Yes, as long as people in this forum make factually inaccurate statements regarding AE911Truth, I'll point out that they're wrong.

As for "running for the hills" - if that's what you want to believe, fine with me.

Justin39640

13th July 2009, 07:32 AM

Yes, as long as people in this forum make factually inaccurate statements regarding AE911Truth, I'll point out that they're wrong.

As for "running for the hills" - if that's what you want to believe, fine with me.

ae911truth is entirely factually inaccurate

cardboard boxes do not react the same way as buildings do

i guess you beg to differ?

R.Mackey

13th July 2009, 08:57 AM

Yes, as long as people in this forum make factually inaccurate statements regarding AE911Truth, I'll point out that they're wrong.

As for "running for the hills" - if that's what you want to believe, fine with me.

After it was explained to you that Mills M. Kay Mackey, who was named in the press release by AE911T, is a fictional character based on South Park and would have been detected by even the clumsiest attempt at verification, you made no further comment in that thread -- one started by you -- despite it running another two and a half pages. The historical record demonstrates that you, in fact, did run for the hills.

And that you learned nothing from that experience, since you're falling for the same con all over again, a year later.

deep

13th July 2009, 09:14 AM

After it was explained to you that Mills M. Kay Mackey, who was named in the press release by AE911T, is a fictional character based on South Park and would have been detected by even the clumsiest attempt at verification, you made no further comment in that thread -- one started by you -- despite it running another two and a half pages. The historical record demonstrates that you, in fact, did run for the hills.

They made a mistake, corrected it, learned form it, and moved on. That doesn't invalidate their entire organization.

Oh, and believe it or not, not everybody in the world watches South Park.

Disbelief

13th July 2009, 09:54 AM

They made a mistake, corrected it, learned form it, and moved on. That doesn't invalidate their entire organization.

Oh, and believe it or not, not everybody in the world watches South Park.

But would they not verify someone who they are touting in a press release? They conned you by claiming to verify members, yet put out information that demonstrates clearly that they do not (or did not).

AZCat

13th July 2009, 09:58 AM

They made a mistake, corrected it, learned form it, and moved on. That doesn't invalidate their entire organization.

No, their organization is invalidated by the poor quality of their arguments, not by the quality of their membership.

deep

13th July 2009, 10:22 AM

But would they not verify someone who they are touting in a press release? They conned you by claiming to verify members, yet put out information that demonstrates clearly that they do not (or did not).

Yes, he was a verified member. It was a mistake that has since been corrected.

You don't know what lengths this guy went to in order to get verified, so how can you comment on the integrity of AE911Truth's verification process? You can't -- at least not in the form of a sound argument.

Mr.Herbert

13th July 2009, 03:34 PM

Yes, he was a verified member. It was a mistake that has since been corrected.

You don't know what lengths this guy went to in order to get verified, so how can you comment on the integrity of AE911Truth's verification process? You can't -- at least not in the form of a sound argument.

Well, I am still proud to be on their advertised list of engineers. As some of you know, my faux name Dr. Cameron Porter PHD. was one of the first listed on his site.

Cameron Porter is the name of the two doctors from the Brady Bunch.

I wrote to Gage several times telling him that it was fake. To this day, it's still on his main page:

http://www.ae911truth.org/

http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o233/CameronFox/porter.jpg

UNLoVedRebel

13th July 2009, 03:43 PM

Well, I am still proud to be on their advertised list of engineers. As some of you know, my faux name Dr. Cameron Porter PHD. was one of the first listed on his site.

Cameron Porter is the name of the two doctors from the Brady Bunch.

I wrote to Gage several times telling him that is was fake. To this day, it still on his main page:

http://www.ae911truth.org/

http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o233/CameronFox/porter.jpg
http://img504.imageshack.us/img504/6682/hyenalaughingbr3.jpg

deep

13th July 2009, 03:46 PM

Well, I am still proud to be on their advertised list of engineers. As some of you know, my faux name Dr. Cameron Porter PHD. was one of the first listed on his site.

'Cameron Porter' is not listed on the petition. Assuming it was there at some point (sounds to me like it was), this would be another example of AE911Truth scrubbing the frauds off their list.

I personally have no problem with that, but everyone is obviously entitled to their own opinion.

beachnut

13th July 2009, 03:51 PM

'Cameron Porter' is not listed on the petition. Assuming it was there at some point (sounds to me like it was), this would be another example of AE911Truth scrubbing the frauds off their list.

I personally have no problem with that, but everyone is obviously entitled to their own opinion.
I wonder if they got rid of all the names that are fantasy, or place on the petition without the person knowing? Are all the name verified? Does it matter if a bunch of fringe professionals, I should say professionals with delusions on 911 issues, believe in Gage's delusions which are equal to believing in a flat earth or Bigfoot!?

It is frauds getting fantasy people off their list of people who support fantasy fraud ideas on 911. Gage is a liar who spends money from people fooled by him on his travel to spread the word so more people will give him money so he can spread the word more.

Your failed ideas are now past 7 years and they stink as bad now as they did when you first made the first failed idea to support delusions.

Mr.Herbert

13th July 2009, 03:53 PM

deep

13th July 2009, 03:58 PM

I wonder if they got rid of all the names that are fantasy, or place on the petition without the person knowing? Are all the name verified? Does it matter if a bunch of fringe professionals, I should say professionals with delusions on 911 issues, believe in Gage's delusions which are equal to believing in a flat earth or Bigfoot!?

I would suggest visiting the site and familiarizing yourself with the petition itself. That way, you'll actually know what they believe (i.e., what they signed), whether or not they are verified, etc.

If you actually have any names that you believe are fantasy, please post them.

beachnut

13th July 2009, 04:06 PM

I would suggest visiting the site and familiarizing yourself with the petition itself. That way, you'll actually know what they believe (i.e., what they signed), whether or not they are verified, etc.

If you actually have any names that you believe are fantasy, please post them.
Better yet name one fact Gage got right on 911 besides the date.

You have LESS than 0.0087 percent of engineers to support something close to your failed delusion on 911 and you need help finding fantasy petition signers? Do you 911 failed movement people do anything for yourselves? You can't figure out 911 how and you fail to find one fact to support your moronic story of CT; why?

Here is a sample of the failed ideas of your coveted band of Gage followers who can't figure out 911 with over 7 years to work on it.I am convinced beyond any shadow of doubt that:
1- NORAD could not have been rendered worthless by anyone or any organization but persons in or close to the U.S. government.
2- No passenger plane hit the pentagon.
3- The two towers could not have come down in near-free fall speed if explosives were not scientifically planted and distributed throughout the structures and sequentially exploded through computer control. Explosions occurred ahead of the advancing debris so that the near-free fall speed can be achieved.
4- The 9/11 wars and war on terror were pre-planned and executed according to these plans.
Every single point a failed delusion backed only with hearsay, moronic opinions and failed ideas. You can't support anything you conclude on 911 with rational evidence; just hearsay, opinions and lies.

Gage will put up a booth and sell his lies to a pathetic few who fail to think past some paranoid delusions on 911. Gage will tell his lies and fail to make a difference save collecting money from people too challenged to think for themselves on 911 issues.

You failed to support anything Gage presents with facts or evidence; you talk but do not have substance to support Gage. All you have to do is have some knowledge and sound judgment to see Gage is making up delusions and those nut case ideas fool a few people out of millions who should know better after earning a degree. This is call failure; at least it may be on one issue.

deep

13th July 2009, 04:14 PM

DEEP... learn to read and please notice the word that is in bold lettering. ADVERTISED!

That scrolling list of names is used as an advertisement on other web-pages including his own.

Yes, it was quite clear. You'll notice that I was referring to the petition, which serves as the member list. 'Cameron Porter' is not on that list, so he's no longer a member (if he ever was one).

I don't care about the "advertised list", because we're talking about AE911Truth members.

Arus808

13th July 2009, 04:25 PM

nice dodge there deep. isn't your back tired from all the goal post moving you've done in this thread?

deep

13th July 2009, 04:32 PM

nice dodge there deep. isn't your back tired from all the goal post moving you've done in this thread?

This was my first post in this thread:

Unless they're one of the many "real architects" who have already signed the petition.

From R. Mackey:
Predictably, deep44 fled for the hills the last time this little charlie foxtrot was explained to him. Nonetheless, he'll still harp about their membership... Feel free to quote my posts directly in order to demonstrate all this goalpost moving you're referring to.

Arus808

13th July 2009, 04:51 PM

anyone can sign a petition deep, in fact, there websites that are created to flood petitions with fake signups all for the purpose of showing that petitions are worthless.

this a group that says they CONFIRM everyone in their "membership" are who they say they are (and if they are listed on the Web Site, they in essence are in support of any petition being passed around).

We've proven that they NEVER confirm their members, and have pointed this out since DAY 1 of the site. THEY continue to list fake members, despite BEING TOLD they are fake.

deep

13th July 2009, 05:28 PM

Wait, what happened to 'moving the goalposts'? You made the accusation - now let's see the evidence.

Sword_Of_Truth

13th July 2009, 06:43 PM

Unless they're one of the many "real architects" who have already signed the petition.

There are no "real architects" who have signed that petition. A persomn who signs that petition stops being an architect or an engineer in the same way that a brain surgeon who suddenly decides to try shrinking tumors by dangling crystals over peoples heads is no longer able to effectively work in his field.

The AE911Truth petition isn't an expression of political dissent. It is a confession of professional incompetence.

Were I a property developer looking to hire people to put buildings up on my land, and I noticed the names of one or more job applicants on a "petition" which states; "We the undersigned haven't got a frakking clue how fire affects various materials and have no understanding of the forces which can cause or result from structural failure" then I will not hire them. In fact I would fire such persons for incompetence if they were already hired.

"Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth" is a scientific impossibility and an oxymoron.

Mr.Herbert

13th July 2009, 06:47 PM

Yes, it was quite clear. You'll notice that I was referring to the petition, which serves as the member list. 'Cameron Porter' is not on that list, so he's no longer a member (if he ever was one).

I don't care about the "advertised list", because we're talking about AE911Truth members.

Did you bother to read the advertisement?

Watch it again, then tell me if someone would be led to believe that the Brady Bunch doctors are a part Dick's delusions.

deep

13th July 2009, 07:01 PM

Did you bother to read the advertisement?

Watch it again, then tell me if someone would be led to believe that the Brady Bunch doctors are a part Dick's delusions.

Again, I don't care about the "advertised list". Go find someone who claims the "advertised list" is an authoritative list of AE911Truth members and take it up with them.

UNLoVedRebel

13th July 2009, 07:03 PM

Wait, what happened to 'moving the goalposts'? You made the accusation - now let's see the evidence.
Yes, he was a verified member. It was a mistake that has since been corrected.

You don't know what lengths this guy went to in order to get verified, so how can you comment on the integrity of AE911Truth's verification process? You can't -- at least not in the form of a sound argument.
No criteria set for petition members only. Mr. Herbert exposes the "verification process" as a fraud.
Well, I am still proud to be on their advertised list of engineers. As some of you know, my faux name Dr. Cameron Porter PHD. was one of the first listed on his site.

Cameron Porter is the name of the two doctors from the Brady Bunch.

I wrote to Gage several times telling him that it was fake. To this day, it's still on his main page:

http://www.ae911truth.org/

http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o233/CameronFox/porter.jpg
'Cameron Porter' is not listed on the petition. Assuming it was there at some point (sounds to me like it was), this would be another example of AE911Truth scrubbing the frauds off their list.

I personally have no problem with that, but everyone is obviously entitled to their own opinion.
Now after Mr. Herbert exposes the 'verification process' as a fraud, deep44 sets the criteria for the petition and not the advert.

That would be 'moving the goalposts'.

Arus808

13th July 2009, 07:06 PM

No criteria set for petition members only. Mr. Herbert exposes the "verification process" as a fraud.

Now deep44 sets the criteria for the petition and not the advert.

That would be 'moving the goalposts'.

and remember, the SITE started off as being the "petition" itself. By joining the site as a member, you essentially were agreeing with the notion that you wanted a new investigation.

the petition (actual signing of petition) didn't come till way later when all of their FRAUDULENT confirmation procedures were shown to be nothing more than "hey we got a new member, lets add them"

deep

13th July 2009, 07:23 PM

No criteria set for petition members only. Mr. Herbert exposes the "verification process" as a fraud.

I've been talking about the petition since my very first post, because that's where verified members are listed.

Unless they're one of the many "real architects" who have already signed the petition.

'Cameron Porter' is not listed on the petition. He is not a verified member.

UNLoVedRebel

13th July 2009, 07:32 PM

I've been talking about the petition since my very first post, because that's where verified members are listed.

Unless they're one of the many "real architects" who have already signed the petition.

'Cameron Porter' is not listed on the petition. He is not a verified member.

There is nothing of substance in that post, just another sad attempt by a truther to "get the last word." The "verification process" has been exposed as a fraud. It's best not to dig yourself deeper into a hole. "I, uh, didn't mean the verification process for advertisements, just uh, petitions uh, yeah. That's good enough too relieve my cognitive dissonance."

Mr. Herbert exposed them as frauds and they are performing an illegal activity (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_advertising). And you are defending these liars and frauds. What's your demarcation for false advertising? Just make sure it's good enough to protect the frauds of your choice. Because you failed miserably last time with the whole 'I don't care about the "advertised list".'

deep

13th July 2009, 08:05 PM

There is nothing of substance in that post, just another sad attempt by a truther to "get the last word." The "verification process" has been exposed as a fraud. It's best not to dig yourself deeper into a hole. "I, uh, didn't mean the verification process for advertisements, just uh, petitions uh, yeah. That's good enough too relieve my cognitive dissonance."

You're claiming that the verification process has been exposed as a fraud, but you haven't offered any evidence related to the verification process.

Please post that evidence if you want to be taken seriously. Until you do so (or retract the claim), I will not waste any more of my time responding to you.

Macgyver1968

13th July 2009, 08:08 PM

UNLoVedRebel

13th July 2009, 08:08 PM

You're claiming that the verification process has been exposed as a fraud, but you haven't offered any evidence related to the verification process.

Please post that evidence if you want to be taken seriously. Until you do so (or retract the claim), I will not waste any more of my time responding to you.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4900092#post4900092

deep

13th July 2009, 08:26 PM

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?p=4900092#post4900092

For the last time, that user is not a verified member, because he is not listed as a petition signer (i.e., in the member list). That is the full, authoritative list of members & supporters.

It's become clear that you're incapable of understanding that. Goodbye.

UNLoVedRebel

13th July 2009, 08:35 PM

For the last time, that user is not a verified member, because he is not listed as a petition signer (i.e., in the member list). That is the full, authoritative list of members & supporters.

It's become clear that you're incapable of understanding that. Goodbye.

Good freaking god are you slow. A Brady Bunch Doctor was on the "authoritative list of members & supporters". Mr. Herbert told Gage the Brady Bunch doctor was a fraud. Gage removed the Brady Bunch doctor after learning it was a fraud. Gage still has a Brady Bunch doctor on the advert. Which leads us to the question: "how did a Brady Bunch doctor make it on an ae911truth advert?"

Answer: THE VERIFICATION PROCESS IS A FRAUD.

Which leads us back to this gem.
You don't know what lengths this guy went to in order to get verified, so how can you comment on the integrity of AE911Truth's verification process? You can't -- at least not in the form of a sound argument.

rikzilla

14th July 2009, 12:14 AM

Grizzly Bear

14th July 2009, 07:53 AM

Gee...aren't there any interesting truthers left around here?? :D

Back in '06 they were preaching revolution and trials for us shills....now where are they?
Running away from debates and embracing "experts" even if they're made up from smoke and old 70's sitcoms.

Wow...we really won big! But hold the applause...fish in a barrel will ultimately croak on their own...shooting them is simply for fun.

-z

I don't know, I think they need all the sitcom characters they can get... the supply of incompetents is abysmally low. It takes a special kind to support the sort of malpractice that takes place within the research bounds of the AE911 group. Numbers are the last thing deep44 should be concerned about. The unprofessional nature of the groups' studies are intensely disturbing.

deep

14th July 2009, 10:06 AM

It takes a special kind to support the sort of malpractice that takes place within the research bounds of the AE911 group. Numbers are the last thing deep44 should be concerned about. The unprofessional nature of the groups' studies are intensely disturbing.

With few exceptions, I only reference the AE911's membership numbers in response to someone claims that "zero real engineers" want a new investigation (or anything along those lines). It's simply untrue, yet people in this forum often present it as an established fact to support their argument.

Many regulars here offer some variation on this argument: well, when an architect/engineer signs that petition, they can no longer be considered a competent professional

Architects/engineers do not lose their degree(s) when they sign the petition, nor am I aware of any member who has been fired or stripped of their license for signing the petition. They retain their professional credentials.

If you feel that all AE911 members lack credibility, or the organization as a whole lacks credibility - that's fine, as long as it's offered as an opinion.

The fact is, AE911 truth is an organization for degreed & degreed/licensed architects & engineers who support a new, independent investigation into the events of 9/11. PERIOD.

I'm not claiming that the existence of AE911 proves anything other than what's stated above.
I'm not claiming that AE911 members account for any more than a fraction of a percent of the world's architects and engineers.
I'm not claiming that AE911's verification process is perfect.

Minadin

14th July 2009, 10:11 AM

But, they do display an astounding level of incompetency, to the point that I would question their ability to pass the licensing exams in their current state. I hope that in most cases it's just politics clouding their judgement, and luckily many of their signers are retired old cranks, but it's still quite frightening.

deep

14th July 2009, 10:35 AM

johnny karate

14th July 2009, 01:56 PM

With few exceptions, I only reference the AE911's membership numbers in response to someone claims that "zero real engineers" want a new investigation (or anything along those lines). It's simply untrue, yet people in this forum often present it as an established fact to support their argument.

Many regulars here offer some variation on this argument: well, when an architect/engineer signs that petition, they can no longer be considered a competent professional

Architects/engineers do not lose their degree(s) when they sign the petition, nor am I aware of any member who has been fired or stripped of their license for signing the petition. They retain their professional credentials.

If you feel that all AE911 members lack credibility, or the organization as a whole lacks credibility - that's fine, as long as it's offered as an opinion.

The fact is, AE911 truth is an organization for degreed & degreed/licensed architects & engineers who support a new, independent investigation into the events of 9/11. PERIOD.

I'm not claiming that the existence of AE911 proves anything other than what's stated above.
I'm not claiming that AE911 members account for any more than a fraction of a percent of the world's architects and engineers.
I'm not claiming that AE911's verification process is perfect.
So your whole argument boils down to: "AE911Truth does in fact exist."

Compelling stuff. :rolleyes:

AZCat

14th July 2009, 07:53 PM

I respect your opinion. Although I've never heard of an AE911 member failing a licensing exam, it's certainly possible.

I'm sure it's happened. Back in the old days (before I took the PE, anyway) the test used to be much more fickle - you could know a considerable amount about your particular field yet get a horribly mismatched set of questions. I know several engineers who had to take the test more than once. It has no bearing on an engineer's skills, which is why they don't even report scores anymore - they just tell you if you passed.

Minadin

15th July 2009, 12:50 AM

The standard architect's registration exam has 7 parts, covering the following core competencies:

Programming, Planning, and Practice
Site Planning and Design
Building Design and Construction Systems
Schematic Design
Structural Systems
Building Systems
Construction Documents and Services

To become a registered architect, a candidate must pass each individual test, and must pass all of them within a certain span of time. Once passed, however, the tests don't need to be re-taken, in most jurisdictions.