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

Originally posted by Smack
You could find the make, model and year of the car in the picture.

The car is more clear in the video, but it is a Pontiac Grand Prix LE or SE and they made that body style from 1990-1996. So, no help there.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


The AIA program shows AE911T has a exhibition booth [2609 or 2610] but that does not equate to 20,000 people viewing it. They were not invited to present a paper at a session but the topic is not one that would readily fit the general program.
It will be interesting to see how many viewed it, if statistics are kept, and if it resulted in more members for AE911T.

reply to post by pteridine


The booth was viewable to the 20,000-24,000 architects in attendance, as was every other booth there.

reply to post by _BoneZ_


That does not mean that people watched the slideshow or were even in that exhibition hall. If you have a store most people walk on by, some stop to look in the windows, and a few enter to look at the goods. Some of those buy and some don't. That would be the statistic of increased membership in AE911T as a result of the presentation. This would take into account personal and corporate interests of the attendees, layout of the booths [being in a dead-end alley is not as good as being on Main Street], attractiveness of the display, and strength of the arguments that were made.
Usually, there are statistics that are gathered for improving the invited talks and exhibitors' booths, mainly for attracting more attendees and exhibitors, who are driven by sales. In this case the easiest statistic is the immediate increase in membership for AE911T.

reply to post by pteridine

646 architectural and engineering professionals

as of today. for posterity.

...here we spoke to hundreds of architects and must have added about 50 to our petitioners over the course of 3 days.

the report on the convention from AE911


[edit on 6-5-2009 by billybob]

reply to post by billybob


thanks for the info. this will be interesting to follow.

Click here to learn more about this warning.

reply to post by JohnWdoe


I put him on ignore, he is trolling this forum, and I don't want to hear it.

Just an update:

We also had the AIA Chapter CEO in Virginia sign the petition – who had been a "fan" and quite aware of these issues and invited us to his major regional convention and offered us a free booth space!

Great news!

reply to post by JohnWdoe


Hmm blasts me on the thread again AND sends me u2u's....makes one wonder. I could care less what you, or anyone else on ATS, thinks of me quite frankly. As for your concern about how I act towards others, I mirror image the treatment I've received for the last several years.

Now, back to the subject...im quite sure that during the convention they managed to find a few more suckers taken in by their intentionally misleading presentation.

People, please. Use the Complaints/Suggestions function. Don't go down this path with those that just want to cause trouble.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Great news!

From www.ae911truth.org...

as of:

Apr 23, 2009
640 Architects and Engineers Call for New 9/11 Investigation

Ok... here we are post AIA and Gage frothing at the mouth boasting that :

..must have added about 50 to our petitioners over the course of 3 days.

Yet the count on his website shows an increase of only 7 new signers.

Interesting...over 25 THOUSAND people at the AIA convention and there was an increase of .... 7?

Maybe Gage is waiting until he gets back from yet another "business trip" to update the numbers?

Dig deep Bonez... i see he is still short over 10 THOUSAND DOLLARS of his now "post marketing" goal of 15 thousand.

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.

W: He was treated very positively. 80 percent of the architects there responded positively. Have a look at the videos of the booth:

www.ae911truth.org...

reply to post by WWu777


After watching the videos, I am quite underwhelmed. You say 80 percent of the people there responded positively. Twenty some thousand attend, maybe fifty of whom signed the petition, the videos show a couple dozen people....curious, where do you come up with the eighty percent statement??????

reply to post by Swampfox46_1999


Swamp...

If you do some simple math... Gage was a bust:

25 thousand people attended the AIA convention in S.F.

Of those 25 thousand, as I posted above; AE4911 truth showed an increase of 7 members.

This means .02 % of those that attended signed up.

Say that there are 50 that signed the petition.

That shows that .2% signed up.

Either way, Gage made a complete imbecile out of himself.

reply to post by CameronFox


He doesn't need to wait to "get back from a business trip". He has a staff. Secondly, every architect and engineer is manually verified. Just because you come to a convention and "say" you're an architect or engineer, doesn't mean you are one. As the signers get verified, they will be added to the list.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
reply to post by CameronFox

 

He doesn't need to wait to "get back from a business trip". He has a staff.

That's right... a staff that your hard earned money helps pays their salaries.

Secondly, every architect and engineer is manually verified. Just because you come to a convention and "say" you're an architect or engineer, doesn't mean you are one. As the signers get verified, they will be added to the list.

He had people signing the petitions there on the spot. (remember in the video him looking for clip boards)


How hard is it to search their name prior to leaving the convention? Don't you think it would have looked better to see the 50+ names on his list? Although 50 out of 25 thousand is a complete bust, it is at least something.


These folks are at the largest Architects convention of the year. I am quite certain that they carry some sort of credentials with them. I for one do and pass out my business cards at the many conventions I attend each year. I am required by Massachusetts State Law to carry my specific professional license with me at all times.

Architect LicenseNew Jersey)

www.dariustorabyarchitects.net...

Gage could simply verify each license by going to this website for California:
www2.dca.ca.gov...$lcev2.startup?p_qte_code=GEN&p_qte_pgm_code=0600

Here is the site for your home state:

extranet.in.gov...

Took me about 30 seconds to find it.

Sorry Bonez.... I don't see how this waste of your money was a success.


[edit on 10-5-2009 by CameronFox]

Originally posted by Swampfox46_1999

Video evidence and corroborating witness testimony are proof enough without the physical proof of explosives. But then again, we do have more than one dust sample showing thermite residue to be apparent. There are plenty of court cases that have prosecuted individuals without having physical evidence available.

And thats where you go wrong in your case. Talk to any firefighter who has fought an office building fire. In almost every case, you will hear things go "BOOM"....but there arent any explosives.
Here's an idea, take all the pressurized cans in your house, Raid, Off, Pledge, oven cleaner, hell, throw in a couple cans of Pepsi. Take them and a wooden cabinet to a clearing, put all the cans in, and then set the cabinet on fire.....then hide behind a tree or a rock because before long things will be exploding.
In an office building (especially a 110 story one) you will find literally hundreds of pressurized items that will explode in the face of heat/flame. Then there are gas lines...think there might have been one or two gas lines running through the buildings that might have been severed when the jets hit?
So, yes, you must prove the existance of actual explosives.

Hey when those pop cans went boom, did a 110 story building collapse right after the boom?

Next go to a Pepsi manufacturing facility and see what safety precausions are taken to keep pop cans from exploding and killing employees? LOL

Why did eyewitness, including firefighters and the mainstream media reports at ground zero, come to the conclusion that the cause for the "boom" was the coup de grace for the building itself??

Why did the FBI original think a truck bomb was used in the attacks instead of a pop-can delivery truck?

Why were survivors in the basement of WTC: 1reminded of the 1993 truck bomb attack by what the felt, heard, and witnessed instead of being reminded of pop cans and Raid cans exploding?

Why were the events in the basement WTC: 1 not examined by NIST, instead brushed aside by a one line statement based upon theory only?

You do realize now that the only items that can be used to prove explosives are in museums and dust?

Now you know why NIST didn't test for explosive residue, because they ignored everything that leads to only that conclusion!

The scam was on from day one. How do we know? Ignoring the evidence...fallacy of omission!

That is how science driven by politics works in the U.S. of A.

Originally posted by CameronFox
reply to post by Swampfox46_1999

 

Swamp...

If you do some simple math... Gage was a bust:

25 thousand people attended the AIA convention in S.F.

Of those 25 thousand, as I posted above; AE4911 truth showed an increase of 7 members.

This means .02 % of those that attended signed up.

Say that there are 50 that signed the petition.

That shows that .2% signed up.

Either way, Gage made a complete imbecile out of himself.

Cameron, can you tell us out of the 25,000 attendees, how many saw Gage's booth?

Don't worry, no one will hold their breath waiting for your response because you don't know. Which means your math is your waste of time and an exercise is comedy for the rest of us.

Originally posted by Swing Dangler


Why did eyewitness, including firefighters and the mainstream media reports at ground zero, come to the conclusion that the cause for the "boom" was the coup de grace for the building itself??

How many firefighters that were witnesses to these explosion sounds have stated they thought the building was brought down in a controlled demolition?

Oh, that's right, they bought the "media fed story"... oh wait... they were "silenced with a gag order"... no no.... firefighters are "in on it".... or... hmmm... they want to "keep their jobs."