AE911Truth is not a valid reference for the controlled demolition hypothesis

[A W Smith]

Originally Posted by ergo

Exponent: "Exponent's research has come under fire from critics, including engineers, attorneys and academics who say the company tends to deliver to clients the reports they need to mount a public defense."

Quote:

Toyota has hired Exponent Inc., a California company which the newspaper reports regularly provides research for corporations under fire including Exxon (the Valdez oil leak disaster), NASA (the Challenger explosion), Swiss Re (insurer of the World Trade Center)

tell me Ergo, What scenario was Swiss Re hoping that exponent would uncover that would help reduce payment for this event?

Quote:

On Purdue: "In one important way this new animation does reflect reality, although in doing so it negates the official stance taken by the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). In their September 2005 report, NIST presented their "collapse initiation sequence", and explained how they felt the loss of fireproofing was the key to the destruction of the towers. NIST suggested that the fireproofing loss occurred as a result of aircraft debris, in the form of shotgun-like blasts, scraping the fireproofing off of thousands of square meters of surface area. [2] But from Purdue's new animation, we can clearly see that the aircraft that impacted the WTC tower could not have been instantly transformed into thousands of tiny pellets in the form of shotgun blasts. The animation more realistically displays the large fragments of debris from the fuselage clattering around in the skeletal framework of the tower. For this reason we must thank Purdue for this visualization that negates NIST's primary explanation....."

But I'm curious: Did Purdue mention anything about concrete encasement of core beams in the towers?

Steven Jones provides a good review of these "investigations" and the ever-changing collapse hypotheses here.

And what effect would the encasement of a few beams under the thresholds of some elevators have on the fire and collapse of the towers?

[ergo]

Originally Posted by BasqueArch

What is certain is that all the studies agree fire collapsed the structures.

Incorrect. The studies were conducted to find a failure scenario that fits the assumption of fire-induced collapse. Nothing else.

[d13bgs]

Thank you Bear, for your civil response and explanation of the attitudes in the forum.

[000063]

Can you prove this, ergo? With citations? Or are you just looking for a single sentence to quote mine? I don't think it's especially relevant, however. As I've already pointed out, even your own link says

Quote:

Arup’s analysis concluded that the effect of thermal expansion on the perimeter columns of the towers—even without the airplane impact—could have led to collapse due to the severity of fire occurring on multiple floors and the resulting thermal expansion of structural elements, particularly the floor systems. The Arup analysis conclusively illustrates that even with code-approved fire protection, a severe fire—without aircraft impact—could still lead to collapse.

I can't seem to find the paper itself, buuut...

www.arup.com/_assets/_download/download353.pdf

Quote:

We therefore commenced a major program of numerical
analysis of the response of tall building structural forms to
multiple floor fires.
+
It is our view that the National Institute of Standards and
Technology’s (NIST) report into the events of 9-11 is a critically
important document for tall building design worldwide.
Its conclusions will have a major influence on the Regulatory
environment, and on clients’ expectations for tall building
design. We believe it will provide invaluable data for future
design validation.

Wait, what am I doing? You've got me on ignore because I kept asking you for definitive statements about things you don't want to be pinned down on, and correcting you.

[d13bgs]

And just to explain to people why my involvement in this forum is sparse. I did not seek out this discussion. Through Google, I found my name being used in this forum, and the usage of it was to discredit AE911Truth by using me as an example of how the organization is fraudulent or worthless because the people in it are non-architects. As I explained at the time, the organization has a clearly demarcated two-tier system of the architects and engineers who sign the petition, and the "supporters" who also believe a new investigation is warranted, but who are not qualified to sign the petition. I was clearly in the "supporter" category, so it was dishonest to use my profession (Software Engineer) to discredit the organization which is built on the professional opinions of the architects and engineers who form its core. I was greeted with hostility at the time, even through I was not making any arguments for or against controlled demolition hypothesis, but merely trying to point out unfair character attacks on the organization. For this reason, I bowed out quickly from the discussion. I guess I was subscribed to this thread, however, so I received a notification of a new post, right about the time the newest AE911Truth video came out. So I thought it would be reasonable to assume nobody here had yet seen the new video, and that it might be worth renewing discussion. Since I have not been heavily involved, I am unaware of how frequently you have debunked the points that appear in the video. So sorry if I'm treading on well-worn ground. Again, if I you told me of a web site you consider reliable for debunking the controlled demolition hypothesis, I will try to catch up on the arguments before attempting to engage in debate again.

My skepticism about this forum continues, since most of the recent responses continue to be fact-free, containing only character attacks, "everybody knows that" assertions, and unfounded speculation on Gage's motives. I find it unlikely he would be doing what he's doing unless he sincerely and strongly believed in what he's saying. He's being widely ridiculed and hated, which I think would put a damper on his enjoyment of his "world tour". I have no evidence that he's sincere, I just think it's the more likely explanation. Thus, I would expect you to provide evidence if you are promoting an alternative explanation of his motivation. However, as I've repeatedly suggested, character attacks are not appropriate when debating issues of fact.

[Grizzly Bear]

Originally Posted by d13bgs

Thank you Bear, for your civil response and explanation of the attitudes in the forum.

Whether you agree with the points or not may be another thing, of course but I have no problem giving some explanation on things. The problem with hearing the same material is it becomes overly predictable and many in my same position can usually name Gage's main talking points out memory or familiarity. It's often a reason why - for better or worse - people here including myself get impatient with them. If you've seen enough of his videos or those of his organization members you'll notice that they mostly follow the same talking points of the free fall acceleration, the ejections, no steel framed skyscraper in history collapsing prior to 9/11, firefighter testimony of explosions, thermite, molten steel, etc. Do these sound familiar with his more recent videos? They're points that also get repeated by other members of the forum as well and they've all been discussed at length.

If you're not too interested in getting the wall-o-posts from people you may be interested in looking at past threads for some explanations. The 9/11 conspiracies have been a hot topic on this site for several years, and people have outlined the errors of the most common claims over that time. Usually they can explain the faults of the claims without the need to ask for a repetition of the explanations.

Or if you want more current opinions from individuals look for someone you can ask when dealing a specific topic. I'm pretty sure if you ask someone will at least be willing to link you to a previous thread if not write a more current explanation.

[ergo]

Originally Posted by 000063

Quote:

Arup’s analysis concluded that the effect of thermal expansion on the perimeter columns of the towers

This is not NIST's model of collapse initiation. You know that, right?

Maybe post something worth responding to once in a while and you might get a little more action.

[d13bgs]

Thank you, I found the links.

A couple more points about the organization, with the goal of trying to put aside some of the attacks without necessarily refuting them. Yes, AE911Truth is a political organization, regardless of their effectiveness as such. The are clearly trying to influence public opinion, which may result in a new investigation even if they don't submit their petition directly.

While it is a political organization, they are making their political argument with scientific facts (true or false, that is their strategy). Peer-reviewed scientific journals have their place, but they are not the appropriate mechanism for the argument AE911T are making. Journals seek to establish new scientific facts by describing reproducible experiments. AE911Truth make their arguments using already-established facts, such as high-school physics and publicly available fire investigation standards documents.

Again, I'm just trying to frame the argument. I need to read the resources before weighing in on the validity of the facts they present.

[R.Mackey]

Originally Posted by d13bgs

While it is a political organization, they are making their political argument with scientific facts (true or false, that is their strategy). Peer-reviewed scientific journals have their place, but they are not the appropriate mechanism for the argument AE911T are making. Journals seek to establish new scientific facts by describing reproducible experiments. AE911Truth make their arguments using already-established facts, such as high-school physics and publicly available fire investigation standards documents.

Given that the entire scientific establishment disagrees with this -- there have been literally hundreds of 9/11 related papers in scientific journals, including portions of the NIST Report, and not one in support of your organization -- you may want to revisit this assumption. It's completely wrong.

[ergo]

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

Given that the entire scientific establishment disagrees with this --

As you can see, d13bgs, no matter how civil you want to be, this is the kind of argument you will get here. And this is from one of their "best".


Grizzly's so-called "civil" statement merely repeats assertions that have never been substantiated, a common "debunker" strategy:

Quote:

* Regardless of his professional status he's made claims that run contrary to reality and the education he recieved while studying for his profession.
* Other members whom themselves are either professionals, educated in, or familiar with architecture and engineering topics have pointed out his errors in detail already.
* It's hard to be objective when the merits of his arguments - now several years old - have already been shown to contain either egregious falsehoods, or errors.

There are no architecture and engineering professionals* speaking out against the position of AE911Truth or Gage's main claims. Not ones using their real names, anyway.

(*besides the handful we already know about.)

[BasqueArch]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BasqueArch ..... What is certain is that all the studies agree fire collapsed the structures.....

Originally Posted by ergo

Incorrect. The studies were conducted to find a failure scenario that fits the assumption of fire-induced collapse. Nothing else.

No, you don’t read too good .
What I said was that “What is certain is that all the studies agree fire collapsed the structures.”
And this is true - all the studies agree fire collapsed the structures.

What you said is that 115 ton airplanes hitting the buildings at 500 miles per hour and hundreds of thousands square feet of simultaneous jet fuel multifloor fires are proof that explosives demolished the towers.

This is where top experienced engineers and bottom amateury wishful spidery speculation differ.

[BasqueArch]

Originally Posted by ergo

.....
There are no architecture and engineering professionals* speaking out against the position of AE911Truth or Gage's main claims. Not ones using their real names, anyway.

(*besides the handful we already know about.)

ergo ... that's your real one word name, no?. Sounds Sephardic, from Lapland. Like Cher.

Besides all the crazies are on your side of the fence.

[ergo]

Originally Posted by BasqueArch

No, you don’t read too good .
What I said was that “What is certain is that all the studies agree fire collapsed the structures.”
And this is true - all the studies agree fire collapsed the structures.

No. The studies were conducted to find a failure scenario that fits the assumption of fire-induced collapse. No other potential causes or mechanisms were studied, despite unanswered questions from the FEMA investigation, wide reports on the day itself of explosions in the buildings, speculation that secondary devices had been planted, and later public criticism from fire engineers of a fire-induced collapse hypothesis. Among many others.

[ergo]

Originally Posted by BasqueArch

ergo ... that's your real one word name, no?. Sounds Sephardic, from Lapland. Like Cher.

Yes, those Sephardic Laplanders, like Cher. That's the effect I was going for.

Quote:

Besides all the crazies are on your side of the fence.

What about the Sephardic Laplanders? What side are they on?

[triforcharity]

Originally Posted by d13bgs

AE911Truth make their arguments using already-established facts, such as high-school physics and publicly available fire investigation standards documents.

No they don't.

BTW, which fire investigation standard are you speaking of......

*snicker.....this 'aught to be fun.....

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by d13bgs

Hi - I'm the Andrew Kittross you mention in your post. When I tried to sign the peition as an engineer, the ae911truth people were very strict about how they judged my qualifications. I had to speak to them on the phone personally. They didn't care how many mechanical engineering courses I took. Since I wasn't a structural engineer or architect, they rejected me from the main signers pool. My name, and I assume the others you mention, are clearly relegated to an "associate" category of supporters, not the main architects and engineers.

You must be really desperate to discredit ae911truth to blatently misrepresent their claims like that.

That is funny, but you got it backwards, signing up for Gage's travel club discredits you. There is no need to discredit Gage's failed organization, Gage discredits himself by spreading lies based on hearsay and fantasy.

The big picture for understanding 911, the education level required, grade school, being an engineer is overkill. Gage spreads lies, you failed to use your education to expose Gage.

If you had something, you and Gage would have a Pulitzer. Where is your Pulitzer?

[QUOTE]"The evidence of controlled demolition is certainly substantial enough to warrant thorough investigation by the government. Why hasn't this possibility been investigated?"Andrew Kittross, BS EE, MS – Computer Software Engineer and Electrical Engineer with over 20 years experience [/quote] Is this a lie from you? Where is the evidence? Why have you and Gage failed to make a difference? Because you can't answer your own questions, and you have NO evidence; and you don't know you don't have evidence (the sad part).

[A W Smith]

Originally Posted by ergo

No. The studies were conducted to find a failure scenario that fits the assumption of fire-induced collapse. No other potential causes or mechanisms were studied, despite unanswered questions from the FEMA investigation, wide reports on the day itself of explosions in the buildings, speculation that secondary devices had been planted, and later public criticism from fire engineers of a fire-induced collapse hypothesis. Among many others.

citation?

[ElMondoHummus]

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

I believe I've made my point.

No matter who investigates, Truthers have a ready-made list of excuses a hundred kilometers long. Even though just a few minutes ago, the Truthers in this thread had never even heard of some of these investigations, and most assuredly haven't read the results for themselves.

Fortunately, nobody cares about their opinions.

What Ryan said. The fact remains that there were multiple investigations which were independent of NIST, and they all drew the same broad conclusions about fire and impact damage dooming the towers. Truthers pointing out Arup's disagreement with NIST as a criticism only highlights the fact that they disagree about the specifics of the fires effects; it's certainly not an invalidation of NIST's findings. On the contrary, it's demonstrating another way the collapse description can be valid (i.e. trusses can deform even with fireproofing intact, therefore NIST can be wrong about the SFRM dislodgement and still be correct about the truss sag and consequent effects).

The problem is, too many truthers don't care about subtleties like that. They only care that they can quote something that sounds vaguely oppositional, and then make the unwarranted leap that such a statement invalidates "The Official Story". Arup's criticism does nothing of the sort; on the contrary, what it disposes of is the conspiratorial version in that it demonstrates the range of possible effects would still lead to a collapse. But conspiracy peddlers don't let simple things like contradiction stop them, do they?

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by d13bgs

Your attacks on the organization are as irrelevant as they are misinformed. How about watching the new video and talking about the facts contained therein?

The forum won't let me post the url. Search YouTube for "9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out, Full-length, Pre-Release-v1.3; Low-Res"

If you're not willing to watch the video, then keep your mouth shut.

There are no facts from 911 truth, and Gage is a subset of 911 truth.

Gage's only purpose is to make money off from people who refuse to think for themselves and say thing like this.

Quote:

"The evidence of controlled demolition is certainly substantial enough to warrant thorough investigation by the government. Why hasn't this possibility been investigated?"

If you had the evidence you would have the Pulitzer. Do you understand your dilemma as you want people to watch moronic videos based on delusions? No

You failed to present the evidence. You need to debug Gage.
We can't comment on the videos because 911 truth are the "truth-NAZIs", they ban the truth and push lies. Why do dissenter get banned on 911 truth, and AE videos? Your leaders can't have the truth show up, it might wake you up.

Originally Posted by d13bgs

Whatever. You guys have fun in your little world.

Welcome to reality, our world is reality, Gage's world is a delusional, a fantasy-land where he spends 23,000 a year on travel, by fooling people into donating money to support him and his travel.

[ergo]

Originally Posted by ElMondoHummus

On the contrary, it's demonstrating another way the collapse description can be valid

Not really "another way", since Arup's opinion was that NIST had not adequately supported its main conclusion.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by ergo

Not really "another way", since Arup's opinion was that NIST had not adequately supported its main conclusion.

You are arguing that 911 truth is wrong. You are debunking 911 truth. No CD, no thermite.

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

For reference, the five I have in mind are the following: NIST, Weidlinger Associates, Exponent, Arup, and Purdue University. Only one of these is an official US Government project, only two used any Government money. One is from overseas. And one was actually a non-advocate study, commissioned by the insurance companies, who stood to win billions of dollars if it could be blamed on anyone other than the hijackers.
...

Could you point out the insurance-commissioned study?
I am not aware of Exponent - do we have a link somewhere so I can learn more?
Thx

[R.Mackey]

Originally Posted by Oystein

Could you point out the insurance-commissioned study?
I am not aware of Exponent - do we have a link somewhere so I can learn more?
Thx

I don't think their full study is on-line anymore. (It has been ten years, after all.) Their cover page lists a couple of related papers that came out later. NIST also references their work in its comparison to other efforts, I think that's in NCSTAR1-6, but it's been years. You may have to contact Exponent directly.

For those who don't know, Exponent used to be called Failure Analysis back in the day, and they were one of the hottest shops around for this kind of work.

[Oystein]

Originally Posted by d13bgs

And just to explain to people why my involvement in this forum is sparse. I did not seek out this discussion. Through Google, I found my name being used in this forum, and the usage of it was to discredit AE911Truth by using me as an example of how the organization is fraudulent or worthless because the people in it are non-architects. As I explained at the time, the organization has a clearly demarcated two-tier system of the architects and engineers who sign the petition, and the "supporters" who also believe a new investigation is warranted, but who are not qualified to sign the petition. I was clearly in the "supporter" category, so it was dishonest to use my profession (Software Engineer) to discredit the organization which is built on the professional opinions of the architects and engineers who form its core. I was greeted with hostility at the time, even through I was not making any arguments for or against controlled demolition hypothesis, but merely trying to point out unfair character attacks on the organization. For this reason, I bowed out quickly from the discussion. I guess I was subscribed to this thread, however, so I received a notification of a new post, right about the time the newest AE911Truth video came out. So I thought it would be reasonable to assume nobody here had yet seen the new video, and that it might be worth renewing discussion. Since I have not been heavily involved, I am unaware of how frequently you have debunked the points that appear in the video. So sorry if I'm treading on well-worn ground. Again, if I you told me of a web site you consider reliable for debunking the controlled demolition hypothesis, I will try to catch up on the arguments before attempting to engage in debate again.

My skepticism about this forum continues, since most of the recent responses continue to be fact-free, containing only character attacks, "everybody knows that" assertions, and unfounded speculation on Gage's motives. I find it unlikely he would be doing what he's doing unless he sincerely and strongly believed in what he's saying. He's being widely ridiculed and hated, which I think would put a damper on his enjoyment of his "world tour". I have no evidence that he's sincere, I just think it's the more likely explanation. Thus, I would expect you to provide evidence if you are promoting an alternative explanation of his motivation. However, as I've repeatedly suggested, character attacks are not appropriate when debating issues of fact.

Originally Posted by d13bgs

Thank you, I found the links.

A couple more points about the organization, with the goal of trying to put aside some of the attacks without necessarily refuting them. Yes, AE911Truth is a political organization, regardless of their effectiveness as such. The are clearly trying to influence public opinion, which may result in a new investigation even if they don't submit their petition directly.

While it is a political organization, they are making their political argument with scientific facts (true or false, that is their strategy). Peer-reviewed scientific journals have their place, but they are not the appropriate mechanism for the argument AE911T are making. Journals seek to establish new scientific facts by describing reproducible experiments. AE911Truth make their arguments using already-established facts, such as high-school physics and publicly available fire investigation standards documents.

Again, I'm just trying to frame the argument. I need to read the resources before weighing in on the validity of the facts they present.

Can we talk about this "organisation" for a bit? I am a bit unsure as to what you mean by that word here. Who is actually a part of this organisation? My impression is that it's only Gage, a few secretaries, and a handful of people like Bowman or Ryan who contribute actively. From what you write, it could be construed that the organisation consists of all the people who filled out that form on the internet - well, I would strongly contest such a view. Question would be: How are these 1,600 + 1x,000 organised, to call them an "organisation"? Do you have meetings? Elections? Regional chapters? Fees? Can people leave the organisation, and how?

[000063]

Originally Posted by ergo

This is not NIST's model of collapse initiation. You know that, right?

Yes, I do, on account of the article in question referring to Arup.

Quote:

Maybe post something worth responding to once in a while and you might get a little more action.

Please stop quote-mining, Ergo. It's really transparent.

Quote:

Arup’s analysis concluded that the effect of thermal expansion on the perimeter columns of the towers—even without the airplane impact—could have led to collapse due to the severity of fire occurring on multiple floors and the resulting thermal expansion of structural elements, particularly the floor systems.

In other words, Arup thinks that fire alone (if such a fire as we saw on 911 had occurred without a terrorist attack) could've bought down the towers, even if the planes hadn't hit them. This is rather damaging to your beloved "fire couldn't have done it!" straw man.

I like how I mock you for quote-mining sentences, and you switch QMing to sentence fragments. You can't help yourself, can you? Sad.

Either way, you clearly dodged my request to support your claim, with citations, as to the purpose of the reports. I think your post about the reports all seeking a failure scenario from the assumption of a fire collapse was spitballing. You had not actually read the reports in question, and were spouting what you hoped they were and hoping no one called you on it.

Of course, if you did read the reports, all you have to do is post a link to them so we can verify your claim. Or even add them to your post as an attachment. It's not hard. Since I believe you're lying, you've caught yourself in the second Catch-22 in two pages.

[000063]

Originally Posted by A W Smith

citation?

I asked him the same thing. He cut down my entire post down to a single sentence fragment and ignored the question. I'm guessing he'll do the same with you.

See, with a lot of truthers, there's no difference between what they hope is true and what they believe is true. In fact, they won't even acknowledge requests for evidence, sometimes, because of all the Truthiness in their hearts. Ergo does this sort of thing all the time.

Originally Posted by beachnut

You are arguing that 911 truth is wrong. You are debunking 911 truth. No CD, no thermite.

It's kind of fun to watch him try to have his cake and some pie too, but his plate isn't big enough for the both of them. So stuff keeps falling on the table, and he just scoops it up and plops it back on the table, and more stuff keeps plopping, and he keeps scooping, and eventually he can get it to stay on the plate, but in a gloppy, mixed-up mass that is far from what the people who baked both slices intended and neither would recognize as what they took out of the oven.

I could use a Frankenstein metaphor, but I think I'll save that one.

[MetalPig]

Originally Posted by ergo

There are no architecture and engineering professionals* speaking out against the position of AE911Truth or Gage's main claims. Not ones using their real names, anyway.

(*besides the handful we already know about.)

How many are even *aware* that AE911Truth exists?

[minnemouse]

Originally Posted by R.Mackey

Seeing as how there have been five, all with the same conclusion apart from a few scientific details, I think we already have our answer.

I guess we do. And to point them in the right direction to these other investigations, don´t seem to do much good either. And when they DO discover that its been many other investigations, I am pretty sure we all know what they´ll say about the investigators

[uke2se]

All we need to do to discredit AE911T is to point out their nonexistent scientific output. Nothing else matters.

[NoahFence]

Originally Posted by ergo

Incorrect. The studies were conducted to find a failure scenario that fits the assumption of fire-induced collapse. Nothing else.

Geeze....why would they assume that?


How it's possible a truther's brain can think the way you people do is amazing.

You totally ignore the fact that no explosive currently in existence can even survive the impact and fireball, and subsequent fire for +/- one hour. It simply is not possible. Controlled demolition was ruled out 1 second into the event.

[beachnut]

Originally Posted by d13bgs

Your attacks on the organization are as irrelevant as they are misinformed. How about watching the new video and talking about the facts contained therein?

The forum won't let me post the url. Search YouTube for "9/11: Explosive Evidence - Experts Speak Out, Full-length, Pre-Release-v1.3; Low-Res"

If you're not willing to watch the video, then keep your mouth shut.

You are keeping your mind shut to the truth, you let in lies and delusions, you have no intention of investigating 911 past what you are feed by Gage.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lw-jzCfa4eQ

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

It makes me sick to watch Gage lie and fool people too challenged to be skeptical and see through his lies. What does it take to be weak and not check out Gage's claims? Gage's has done zero research. Gage cherry-picked existing 911 truth claims and formed a presentation with the goal of nothing. He has no goal. When you supposedly have 1600 experts, you can do your own investigation. Gage is only able to get 300,000 dollar by fooling people not much money to more than pay yourself, make up silly presentation to fool more people all over the world, and travel all over the world, something that costs AE 23,000 dollars. What would you do to survive in these times? If you could set up a web site, give presentations, make 70k, and travel on funds from AE to the tune of 23,000 dollars, would you be willing to spread delusions about 911? You can't get work in your field, would you lie to make money? Gage is either a liar, or dirt dumb stupid. Take your pick, they both have the same outcome, Gage is spreading crazy claims he cherry picked from 911 truth.

In the video people fail to understand simile. Gage's video talks of explosions, and many of those explosions were bodies hitting the ground. Your research is so shallow and failed, you have no clue Gage is using dead bodies hitting the ground as evidence for explosives. You failed big time signing up for Gage's fraud. Why is your name removed?

If I thought 911 was an inside job like you do, I would have solved it in the first years after 911. And if I had all the evidence you claim to have, I would be famous with a Pulitzer Prize. This is murder we are talking about and you are doing what for 10 years? Right, nothing, save signing a petition put up by a fraud on 911 issues, someone who found a fringe group and makes money from people too lazy to research 911.

Gage's scam survives due to ignorace.

http://forums.randi.org/local_links.php?catid=18
How much research have you done? What is your take on Flight 93? On 77?
What does Gage's failed group say about 93 and 77? Why are they unable to tie 911 into a reality based story? Do you care that gravity is the primary energy source in controlled demolitions, E=mgh is the primary source of energy used to destroy buildings, so 911 gravity collapses don't look like CD, CDs look like gravity collapses. There are zero experts on demolition in 911 truth because all reality based experts understand 911 given the real evidence. Gage's vapor evidence does not work in the real world.

Please take the time to watch your super video, and list all the evidence you have. Your list will be zero. Start a thread and list your evidence, it will be empty. Why are you doing nothing when you have all this super evidence? What is holding you back from taking action? Where did you go?

http://forums.randi.org/local_links.php?catid=18
"If you're not willing to do the research into 911, then keep your mouth shut"
Right back at you. Read all the references, come back next year when you are finished reading NIST and all the references here.
http://forums.randi.org/local_links.php?catid=18
I try to not sign anything until I research it. Don't sign sidewalk petitions unless you are up to speed. Have you read NIST? How can you sign Gage's petition if you have not read the hundreds of investigation papers already done?

http://forums.randi.org/local_links.php?catid=18
"If you're not willing to do the research into 911, then keep your mouth shut"
You said it first; have you read all you can read on 911? If you have and you comprehend what you read, then you can't support Gage.

[Minadin]

Originally Posted by MetalPig

How many are even *aware* that AE911Truth exists?

In the last 3 years, Bigfoot discussions outnumber 9/11 discussions, by about 12 to 0, at least in my office.

[ElMondoHummus]

Originally Posted by Minadin

In the last 3 years, Bigfoot discussions outnumber 9/11 discussions, by about 12 to 0, at least in my office.

Man, your office has got a lot of woo believers, talkin' about bigfoot all the time!

[BasqueArch]

Originally Posted by beachnut

You are keeping your mind shut to the truth, you let in lies and delusions, you have no intention of investigating 911 past what you are feed by Gage.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lw-jzCfa4eQ

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

It makes me sick to watch Gage lie and fool people too challenged to be skeptical and see through his lies. What does it take to be weak and not check out Gage's claims? Gage's has done zero research. Gage cherry-picked existing 911 truth claims and formed a presentation with the goal of nothing. He has no goal. When you supposedly have 1600 experts, you can do your own investigation. Gage is only able to get 300,000 dollar by fooling people not much money to more than pay yourself, make up silly presentation to fool more people all over the world, and travel all over the world, something that costs AE 23,000 dollars. What would you do to survive in these times? If you could set up a web site, give presentations, make 70k, and travel on funds from AE to the tune of 23,000 dollars, would you be willing to spread delusions about 911? You can't get work in your field, would you lie to make money? Gage is either a liar, or dirt dumb stupid. Take your pick, they both have the same outcome, Gage is spreading crazy claims he cherry picked from 911 truth.

In the video people fail to understand simile. Gage's video talks of explosions, and many of those explosions were bodies hitting the ground. Your research is so shallow and failed, you have no clue Gage is using dead bodies hitting the ground as evidence for explosives. You failed big time signing up for Gage's fraud. Why is your name removed?

If I thought 911 was an inside job like you do, I would have solved it in the first years after 911. And if I had all the evidence you claim to have, I would be famous with a Pulitzer Prize. This is murder we are talking about and you are doing what for 10 years? Right, nothing, save signing a petition put up by a fraud on 911 issues, someone who found a fringe group and makes money from people too lazy to research 911.

Gage's scam survives due to ignorace.

http://forums.randi.org/local_links.php?catid=18
How much research have you done? What is your take on Flight 93? On 77?
What does Gage's failed group say about 93 and 77? Why are they unable to tie 911 into a reality based story? Do you care that gravity is the primary energy source in controlled demolitions, E=mgh is the primary source of energy used to destroy buildings, so 911 gravity collapses don't look like CD, CDs look like gravity collapses. There are zero experts on demolition in 911 truth because all reality based experts understand 911 given the real evidence. Gage's vapor evidence does not work in the real world.

Please take the time to watch your super video, and list all the evidence you have. Your list will be zero. Start a thread and list your evidence, it will be empty. Why are you doing nothing when you have all this super evidence? What is holding you back from taking action? Where did you go?

http://forums.randi.org/local_links.php?catid=18
"If you're not willing to do the research into 911, then keep your mouth shut"
Right back at you. Read all the references, come back next year when you are finished reading NIST and all the references here.
http://forums.randi.org/local_links.php?catid=18
I try to not sign anything until I research it. Don't sign sidewalk petitions unless you are up to speed. Have you read NIST? How can you sign Gage's petition if you have not read the hundreds of investigation papers already done?

http://forums.randi.org/local_links.php?catid=18
"If you're not willing to do the research into 911, then keep your mouth shut"
You said it first; have you read all you can read on 911? If you have and you comprehend what you read, then you can't support Gage.

.
Pretty good post as usual, nothing but facts. Beachnut posts facts which knock Believers down but they zombie-up and shake themselves off as if nothing had happened. Can't argue with facts, though.

Delusions vs facts, facts always come out on top. Can't fool nature.

Will we lose our nerve to the barbarians at the gate, or not. The delusional can lemming off the cliffs, no pity from me or nature. I just hope they don't drag my society, family, friends down with them.

[Demo Expert]

Originally Posted by ergo

No. The studies were conducted to find a failure scenario that fits the assumption of fire-induced collapse. No other potential causes or mechanisms were studied, despite unanswered questions from the FEMA investigation, wide reports on the day itself of explosions in the buildings, speculation that secondary devices had been planted, and later public criticism from fire engineers of a fire-induced collapse hypothesis. Among many others.

While I think you are right, I do not know of any studies, outside ae911truth, that looked at nuclear weapons, energy beams, missiles, fire proof explosives.

The widespread reports of explosions are bogus as you know, and exist in any large fire. And alos things falling from height make noise like explosives.

However what was interesting in all the fire studies was that the experts new of this criticism and of the crazy theories yet none of them found any need to explain the collapse except by fire.

You are nuts to assume that these experts had no integrity and were paid off to come to their conclusions. Grow up

[NoahFence]

Quote:

Grow up

That'll happen...

[Demo Expert]

Originally Posted by d13bgs

Hi - I'm the Andrew Kittross you mention in your post. When I tried to sign the peition as an engineer, the ae911truth people were very strict about how they judged my qualifications. I had to speak to them on the phone personally. They didn't care how many mechanical engineering courses I took. Since I wasn't a structural engineer or architect, they rejected me from the main signers pool. My name, and I assume the others you mention, are clearly relegated to an "associate" category of supporters, not the main architects and engineers.

You must be really desperate to discredit ae911truth to blatently misrepresent their claims like that.

Ha Ha that's hillarious,

When people hear that 1600 "architect and engineering professionals" have signed the ae911truth petition; don't you think that people expect these people to have some expertiese in tall buildings or structural engineering. So don't you think that being a Computer and Electrical Engineer, like you is an attempt by ae911truth, to deliberately mislead the public and pretend that more qualified people and experts have signed their petition than actually have?

[NoahFence]

Originally Posted by Demo Expert

Ha Ha that's hillarious,

When people hear that 1600 "architect and engineering professionals" have signed the ae911truth petition; don't you think that people expect these people to have some expertiese in tall buildings or structural engineering. So don't you think that being a Computer and Electrical Engineer, like you is an attempt by ae911truth, to deliberately mislead the public and pretend that more qualified people and experts have signed their petition than actually have?

I know you're new here, so I'll let it pass for now. If there's one iron-clad fact of life, it's that AE911 truth would never mislead, lie, exaggerate, omit important facts, or steal from the (mentally) poor.

[ProBonoShill]

Originally Posted by Demo Expert

While I think you are right, I do not know of any studies, outside ae911truth, that looked at nuclear weapons, energy beams, missiles, fire proof explosives.

The widespread reports of explosions are bogus as you know, and exist in any large fire. And alos things falling from height make noise like explosives.

However what was interesting in all the fire studies was that the experts new of this criticism and of the crazy theories yet none of them found any need to explain the collapse except by fire.

You are nuts to assume that these experts had no integrity and were paid off to come to their conclusions. Grow up

Ergo hasn't come to terms with his delusions yet, so that might take awhile.


Amyway, welcome aboard Demo Expert, glad to have you.