AE911T to Display Evidence at National AIA Convention w/multimedia presentation to 20,000 architects

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Forensic evidence? Oh yea, Dr Johns and his make believe thermite. At this point why not just state you found traces of C-4 as well. It wouldnt be true either, and yet there would be sheep there that believed it as well as the thermite lies.

Wait? you actually believe the official story?

Seriously?

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by _BoneZ_

 

Johns, Jones, doesnt matter, he is a charlatan....or a total idiot. He reminds me of the morons from NIS that decided it was a bomb that blew up the turret on the Iowa, because he seems to use the same methods of reasoning.

Almost worth booking a trip just to see how Mr. Gage gets treated.

Please provide some counter evidence to support your claim.

As people dont' take random claims on here too seriously.

Many people still don't believe these guys but at least they provide evidence to support your case.



Your " evidence" is that he is an idiot ?????

That's it?

I guess it takes one to know of one.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by _BoneZ_

 

First off, its cojones. Second, would you make up your mind was it thermite residue or was it explosive residue? Either way it really doesnt matter I guess, because neither one was used that day. Actually I wish he would find a court of law that would hear him, it would take an educated lawyer all of about thirty seconds to rip apart his conclusions.

The earlier comment stands about his (and others) reasonings being the same as the fools who first investigated the USS Iowa accident.

i understand your statement, but you have not provided any evidence or support for your argument.

Simple statements do not mean truth.




You may want to look in the mirror before calling others "stupid"....

I believe the words I used were "charlatan", "idiot", "morons" and now "fools", not "stupid".

If I said you were a dis-info agent working for the pentagon without providing proof or something to support it you would maybe be mad at me and people would not take me seriously as it is just a random claim without any evidence or supporting information to back my statement.


This is how you come across.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Griff

 

Okay, fine, an experienced forensic investigator will have no problems ripping apart his testimony...feel better now?

As for the other part, Im not the only that shares the belief that the good Dr IS a charlatan and those that believe every word that comes out of his mouth are fools. Now, if you want to discuss actual evidence, we could do that.

THE OP did provide some actually evidence that is discussion worthy, you have just decided that you don't agree with any of it so you don't accept it.

But please do provide some evidence to start talking about.

I believe that past couple posts are hinting that to you. We have been waiting for you to provide and even discuss evidence.

You said you would so please start now.

Originally posted by CameronFox

Originally posted by _BoneZ_


Also, keep an eye on that number. It's about to go up significantly after this conference. Then we'll all laugh hysterically at YOUR joke.

Are they all idiots? No. Some are misinformed. Some believe nukes played a roll in the collapses. Will there be more after the convention? I would have to say yes. They too, will fall under the idiot label or the misinformed.

Random idiots can't just become architechs as architechs have to be 100% accurate in everything they do.

There aren't any random c grad students out of college leading the construction of important buildings.

These are credible people.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by _BoneZ_

 

I could take a vial of dust at any construction site that is using steel framing and it would show evidence of "thermite". Thats what you continue to refuse to understand. The chemical residues he declares are thermite...arent. They are the normal residues that you would expect to find.

Like I alluded to earlier, during the Iowa investigation, they found sodium chloride, steel wool, break free, and a couple other chemical residues and declared it was a bomb that destroyed the turret. The morons failed to understand that those were NORMAL residues to be found in a gun turret aboard a Navy ship. The "thermite" believers are using the same methodology. So, either the good Dr has either failed to properly investigate or he is willfully misleading the "truth" movement..you decide.

Wow at least you finally are backing up your factless statements with some substance.

See now we can all have a nice conversation and debate about what is and what is not and how things happened.

Welcome for the first time in this thread, to the actual discussion.

Your first posts should have included that info you just presented.

This would have been a lot easier.

Originally posted by CameronFox

Originally posted by _BoneZ_


Also, keep an eye on that number. It's about to go up significantly after this conference. Then we'll all laugh hysterically at YOUR joke.

Are they all idiots? No. Some are misinformed. Some believe nukes played a roll in the collapses. Will there be more after the convention? I would have to say yes. They too, will fall under the idiot label or the misinformed.

I'm not an idiot. I'm not misinformed. And I don't believe nukes or holograms played a role in the collapses.

I just want a new investigation, because I didn't get the investigation my tax dollars paid for last time.

And my name is on the member list.

[edit on 4-26-2009 by Valhall]

Originally posted by Valhall
And my name is on the member list.

As is mine. And I'm also a sustaining member. It doesn't matter though when we're all just a bunch of misinformed idiots.

Originally posted by LucidDreamer85

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Forensic evidence? Oh yea, Dr Johns and his make believe thermite. At this point why not just state you found traces of C-4 as well. It wouldnt be true either, and yet there would be sheep there that believed it as well as the thermite lies.

Wait? you actually believe the official story?

Seriously?

It makes more sense and has more actual evidence supporting it, than any of the lunatic conspiracy theories.

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


If the official story made sense, why is it that so many people question it?

I consider myself to be an articulate, intelligent human being and I have grave concerns about the official story. Having said that, I am highly offended at the fact you are calling me, and many thousands of other people like me, foolish and idiots while at the same time presenting absolutely no evidence of your own to back up your claims that the official story is real.

Front up with some of your own evidence and then I may start to take you seriously. Until then I consider you just another speck of dust on the window to reality.

[edit on 27/4/2009 by Kryties]

reply to post by Kryties


It's not "If the official story made sense, why do so many people question it?", its "why do so many people question the story without fully informing themselves of the facts first?"

If you feel offended..GOOD. Start thinking for yourself and start questioning people like Richard Gage and Steven Jones. You get upset with people who believe the official story, well I get irritated with people that blindly accept everything they see on the internet as fact whether its the mistaken belief that a high rise building could survive a high speed airliner impact or that some joker who used to teach at BYU has a magic vial of thermite from the WTC.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Ah, so you made claims that you have no proof of. Got it.

You're a member ...oh wait... you PAY to be a member there... why don't YOU ask Mr. Gage what happened last year at the Boston AIA convention that was held at the BCEC. Ask him why he didn't mention it on his website.

So a very prominent architect or engineer would be a credible person one day, but if they look at and agree with the evidence AE911T presents, then they become instantly idiots? ......

If they are prominent, they sure wont by the snake oil that Gage sells.

A prominent architect or engineer's degrees, education and background don't change just because they believe in 9/11 truth.

What is the key word here? I snipped the rest of your rant. What do you call a Med Student that graduates with a 70% average.... "Doctor"

There are plenty of bad doctors out there...along with bad dishwashers and ditch diggers.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
As is mine. And I'm also a sustaining member. It doesn't matter though when we're all just a bunch of misinformed idiots.

I didn't call Val or you an idiot. Val questions certain things with NIST (if I am remembering correctly) Val doesn't make claims of thermate and nukes and other exotic weaponry.

You Bonez, give your hard earned money to this charlatan so he can pimp his lies and distortions to those that will buy it. You paid for his trip to Europe, and his other trips across the U.S. Does that make you an idiot? Not me to judge you sir. Gage however, laughs all the way to the bank every month. I'm sure he appreciates all the $$ you send him.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by _BoneZ_

 

Johns, Jones, doesnt matter, he is a charlatan....or a total idiot. He reminds me of the morons from NIS that decided it was a bomb that blew up the turret on the Iowa, because he seems to use the same methods of reasoning.

Almost worth booking a trip just to see how Mr. Gage gets treated.

Why do official story theorists and believers always omit things in an argument that are detrimental to their case?

For example, this genius focuses on one person but fails to address the numerous co-authors of the paper as well. Geez, I wonder why?

What you should now do is publish a rebutall to the paper you are referring to in a scientific peer-reviewed journal and then you will have a case. Everything else is attacking the character, the second most popular debunking tactic that fails.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
reply to post by Kryties

 

If you feel offended..GOOD. Start thinking for yourself and start questioning people like Richard Gage and Steven Jones.

I question EVERYTHING i read, and I have come to my own conclusions: in this case it is that something is very wrong with the official story. Please attempt not to claim that you know what I think or my methods.

You get upset with people who believe the official story, well I get irritated with people that blindly accept everything they see on the internet

Why is that? Why do you get irritated? Is it because someone dares to have an opinion that contradicts yours?

whether its the mistaken belief that a high rise building could survive a high speed airliner impact or that some joker who used to teach at BYU has a magic vial of thermite from the WTC.

What about a whole plane magically disappearing into the ground in Pennsylvania? What about the many witnesses who claim to have seen a flight path that cintradicts the NIST data at the Pentagon? What about the fact that, for the first time in history, a high-rise building was collapsed by fire? What about the fact that 9/11 was used as an excuse to invade Iraq - even Bushy-boy admitted later that there was no connection to 9/11.

I think for myself mate, much more than you appear to. You may want to take your own words to heart and question what has been spoon-fed to you by the government and the mass media.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
It's not "If the official story made sense, why do so many people question it?", its "why do so many people question the story without fully informing themselves of the facts first?" I get irritated with people that blindly accept everything they see on the internet as fact

Part of your problem is you "assume" too much. See, I believed the official story until I accidentally stumbled upon 9/11 truth. I spent the next several months researching their claims and found the claims to be true and factual. You think everyone in the 9/11 truth movement just takes people like Richard Gage at face value, you're sorely mistaken.

How much research have you actually done into the claims of 9/11 conspiracy theorists? Or do you believe whole-heartedly that factions within the government couldn't possibly devise and carry out such a thing that you won't even waste your time?

By the way, if things we say irritate you, then stop coming in our threads, thanks.

reply to post by Kryties

Is it because someone dares to have an opinion that contradicts yours?

Pretty sure I said something about people blindly accepting everything they see on the internet.......

And the rest of my replies to your post only illustrate my point.

What about a whole plane magically disappearing into the ground in Pennsylvania?

Magically disappearing? If it wasnt such a sad statement, I would probably laugh. Yes, a large portion of that airliner dug into the ground. It also left pieces of itself and its passengers all over the crash site.

www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
www.911myths.com...
wtc7lies.googlepages.com...;init:.jpg

King: "We stopped and I opened the door. The smell of jet fuel was overpowering. I will never forget that smell; it is really burnt into my mind. ...I walked down the power line and got my first glimpse of human remains. Then I walked a little further and saw more."

Shanksville VFD firefighter Keith Curtis: "I walked up to where the tire was on fire, probably a hundred feet past the crater. It was a big tire. I was thinking that this is a big jet. I hit it good with the hose and put it out. I stopped and 'poof,' it just started on fire again."

Firefighter Mike Sube: "We made our way to a small pond. That's where I observed the largest piece of wreckage that I saw, a portion of the landing gear and fuselage. One of the tires was still intact with the bracket, and probably about three to five windows of the fuselage were actually in one piece lying there. ...There were enough fires that our brush truck was down there numerous times. ...I saw small pieces of human remains and occasionally some larger pieces. That was disturbing, but what was most disturbing was seeing personal effects.

Lieutenant Roger Bailey, Somerset Volunteer Fire Department: "We started down through the debris field. I saw pieces of fiberglass, pieces of airplane, pop rivets, and mail...Mail was scattered everywhere. ...the one guy who was with us almost stepped on a piece of human remains. I grabbed him, and he got about half woozy over it."

Yeah....those pics and those statements really look/sound like magic happened there that day.

What about the many witnesses who claim to have seen a flight path that cintradicts the NIST data at the Pentagon?

At most, maybe a 50-75 yard variance....MAYBE...Well within the margin of error of the nav systems. Of course, you do realize that those same witnesses agree it was an American Airlines jet that hit the Pentagon right?

What about the fact that, for the first time in history, a high-rise building was collapsed by fire?

I guess you missed that part about two of the buildings being hit by high speed airliners and the third being hit by the North Tower as it collapsed? It wasnt just the fire, and it wasnt just the damage, it was both combined. And dont bother bringing up the B-25 that hit the Empire State Building. That does not even begin to compare to the WTC.

What about the fact that 9/11 was used as an excuse to invade Iraq - even Bushy-boy admitted later that there was no connection to 9/11.

Nope. We invaded Iraq because Saddam Hussien was continuing to refuse to comply with the terms of the Gulf War cease-fire, he was supporting terrorists AND we were no longer going to take the chance that he would not give WMDs to terrorists. At this point, I will point out that while no hard evidence was found linking Saddam to the 9/11 attacks, the intelligence agencies of three of our allies to this day insist that Mohammed Atta and others of the 9/11 hijackers DID meet with Iraqi officials in their respective countries. In addition, there is plenty of evidence connecting the Iraqi government to Al Qaeda and off shoots of Al Qaeda.

I think for myself mate, much more than you appear to

Sorry MATE, but your post suggests that you do not.

You may want to take your own words to heart and question what has been spoon-fed to you by the government and the mass media.

I had friends at the WTC, Pentagon and have been able to talk to several people who were at Flight 93's crash site.....the only spoon feeding, is being done by conspiracy peddlers.

reply to post by _BoneZ_

Part of your problem is you "assume" too much

I assume too much?

Shall we look at the the other side of that...

Truthers assume that the engineers were right when they said the WTC could withstand an airliner impact.

Truthers assume that three buildings were wired for demolition in the space of a couple days...and no one noticed.

Truthers assume that our Continental Air Defense was adequate enough to have prevented what happened.

Truthers assume that since no foreigner could possibly attack us, it must have been the Government.

I think I will stop there cause Im probably going to get docked a few points for wandering off topic. But you should get the idea....

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Truthers assume that the engineers were right when they said the WTC could withstand an airliner impact.

Um, the towers did survive both impacts. Had they both not been laced with explosives from top to bottom, they would still be standing today either repaired, or brought down. Oh wait, they DID bring them down....on 9/11.

Just because you don't want to believe the facts, doesn't mean the facts are wrong.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Truthers assume that three buildings were wired for demolition in the space of a couple days

If a truther is saying the above, then they are just misinformed. Most people in the 9/11 truth movement that believe 3 WTC buildings were brought down with explosives know that it takes months to plan and prep buildings for a demolition.

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Truthers assume that our Continental Air Defense was adequate enough to have prevented what happened.

When the U.S. was attacked at Pearl Harbor, after eight inquiries, General Walter Short, Commander of the Army for the defense of Hawaii, and Admiral Husband Kimmel, Commander of the Pacific Fleet, were both charged with negligence and dismissed. After 9/11, neither the Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, nor the head of Civil Aviation, nor the head of Air Defense was punished or removed from office.

On September 10, 2001, U.S. Army Brigadier General W. Montague Winfield asked junior officer Captain Charles Leidig to temporarily replace him as Director of Operations at the Pentagon's National Military Command Center (NMCC) from 8:30am on 9/11. After the last plane had crashed, Winfield resumed control. After 9/11, Winfield was promoted to Major General.

Captain Charles Leidig had only just completed a course qualifying him to run the command center. After 9/11, he was promoted to Rear Admiral, Director of Operations of the Sixth Fleet Naval Forces in Europe.

On 9/11/01, Brigadier General David F. Wherley Jr. was Commander of Andrews Air Force Base (the nearest base to the Pentagon). After 9/11, he was promoted to Major General, Commanding General of the National Guard, District of Columbia.

On 9/11/01, Richard B. Myers, Vice Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, was the temporary head of all U.S. armed forces in the absence of Chairman Shelton who was out of the country. On October 1, 2001, Myers was promoted to Chairman.

video.google.com...

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999
Truthers assume that since no foreigner could possibly attack us, it must have been the Government.

And that's a mis-assumption on your part. You THINK that we think no foreigner could attack us. I don't really know where you even got that notion other than to make it up to help make yourself feel better. And we don't go around thinking "it must've been the government" either. All available evidence points to elements within the government. It's called "evidence", not "must've been the government".

You have to look at ALL of the evidence, not just pick and choose what you want to look at. Again, just because you don't want to look at the evidence or agree with the evidence, doesn't make it any less truthful or factual.

Time magazine acknowledged in 2006 that the 9/11 Truth movement was not a "fringe phenomenon," but "a mainstream political reality."

This reminds me of how much time and effort the debunkers have put into discrediting a 'conspiracy theory', and that their efforts have been seemingly for naught, as polls show ever increasing numbers of people around the globe are able to recognize the truth when they see it.

I have noticed that there are invariably two personages that appear most dutifully on any 911 topic -- keen to whittle away to sawdust every argument presented, easily discouraging all but the most discerning and determined.

Once upon a time there were three little foxes
Who didnt wear stockings, and they didnt wear sockses,
But they all had handkerchiefs to blow their noses,
And they kept their handkerchiefs in cardboard boxes.
-- A.A. Milne