My hero Noam Chomsky says hurtful things about us Truthers! We need to enlighten and inform him!

Just for my own entertainment I've been going through the list of AE911 Truth architects and engineers. So far one has been a recently graduated student who doesn't seem to have found a full time job yet, one is a kitchen designer, and one has absolutely no evidence of any engineering work on the web at all.

None of this proves anything of course. But put it this way - it hasn't surprised me.

Oh it just gets better. This bloke - chosen from the list entirely at random - has built a barn (well, most of it). With walls made out of straw.

From his CV:

"did much of the construction for a 400 sq.ft. barn with straw bale walls in a City-owned community farm."

I'm definitely interested in his expert opinion about vastly complex steel structures.

heh

go read his books, go to his lectures and watch his videos ,
who does he accuse of terrorism : usa and israel.

throwing dirt on chomsky just because he dosnot agree on how a building collapsed is very unmature,

besides he´s main focus of life is language and communication and understanding words and their meanings.

so when he sais its the usa whos doing the terrorism around the world then he is right from the begining all a long.

Originally posted by WWu777

Uh you didn't go to my link or read my post. Many of the 786 engineers who signed the AE911Truth petition have 40 years or more of PROFESSIONAL EXPERIENCE.

Funny thing though, they're so sure, and yet I've never seen a paper from any of these guys.

I wonder why? Incompetence at the subject in question?

Also, why didn't you include Charles Pegelow? He's on record saying that he believes a pineapple nuke was responsible.....

Originally posted by pteridine

Originally posted by WWu777
If the WTC controlled demolition theory is ridiculous, as you disinfo people claim, then would Europe's top demolitions expert say that it was controlled demolition? DUH!

DUH, indeed. Ask the top demolitions expert when he last expertly demolished buildings the size of WTC so as to have the experience to know that they fell because of CD.
Ask him how he would have placed the charges; what kinds, how many, how big, and where.
Ask him how he would have prepared the building for a top down collapse. Ask him how he would have removed all traces of demolition.

I'll bet when he actually thinks before talking, you'll get a different answer.

is this the Danish guy?

Well, he says the the towers WEREN'T CD.

So if we go by troofer standards, it is irrefutable proof that 1 and 2 weren't CD'ed.

Backtrack/cognitive dissonance in 5...4....3...2...1...

I'm going to have to stop this I suppose. It's such a waste of time, but so much fun.

Here's Kyle Petlock (BS Environmental Engineering):

"I believe the NYC "disaster control center" bunker on the 23rd floor of Building 7 was the control center for the demolition of the towers."


When they pressed the third red button they must have got a big shock.

Originally posted by WWu777
Some of you guys should be ashamed of yourselves. Gage is clearly a sincere sweet pleasant honest fellow who is very likable. There is no evidence that he's a fraud. You guys are desperate to debunk him.

I'm just a tourist from Planet Earth visiting Planet Conspiracy. I admire your blanket marketing techniques.

There are people who do actively like to debunk, not out of desperation, but because they don't like to see self-serving disinformation spread by career opportunists like your hero.

Someone at the James Randi forum caught up with Gage recenty. Pictures below. Tellingly Gage is selective on what he lets his waiting audience in on.

There is a whole world out there that doesn't buy into this carnival sideshow creating doubt about WTC collapses as a sub-indusrty.

You might want to check out what honest self-respecting professionals think.

forums.randi.org...

Richard Gage and his organization post videos religiously. Whether it is him giving a presentation at a community college or speaking to someone who just happens to walk up to his booth during an architects convention that has no idea what he is talking about. However, we have seen that when someone mops the floor with Richard, or at the very least challenges his beliefs, he does not post videos or advertise them at his ae911truth.org website.

Yes, he posts videos of the most mundane conversations in which he tries to get these old geezers (barely in their right mind) to sign his petition, however, he does not post a video on his website with him debating a lead researcher in the 9/11 Truth debunking movement, Mark Roberts, when they both appeared on a coast-to-coast satellite interview on a local cable television show broadcasting to New York’s 8.3 million citizens. Why? Because Richard Gage got his rear-end handed to him

Mike

reply to post by WWu777


You should be used to dumb statements; Gage provides the example on a daily basis and you follow him, devotedly.
As to reading all of the statements, I must confess that I suspended my reading after noticing a zealous sameness about the statements. It would be safe to say that all are truly convinced and reading their testimonials is as pointless as listening to born again's prosetylize.
I have considered that they might be right. I then looked at evidence and concluded that they are wrong. I will hold that position until evidence is brought to light that would change it.
In general, this seems to be a faith-based movement that requires suspension of reality and a high level of self-induced fantasy.

For a detailed examination of Gage's inconsistencies and blunders, this website might interest you...if you are brave enough to read it.
ae911truth.info...

Originally posted by _BoneZ_
I'm calling you out on this. It's against the ToS of ATS to knowlingly post false information (disinformation).

Good think ATS doesn't enforce this else every Troother here would have been booted yesterday.

Originally posted by mmiichael

Originally posted by WWu777
Some of you guys should be ashamed of yourselves. Gage is clearly a sincere sweet pleasant honest fellow who is very likable. There is no evidence that he's a fraud. You guys are desperate to debunk him.

I'm just a tourist from Planet Earth visiting Planet Conspiracy. I admire your blanket marketing techniques.

There are people who do actively like to debunk, not out of desperation, but because they don't like to see self-serving disinformation spread by career opportunists like your hero.

Someone at the James Randi forum caught up with Gage recenty. Pictures below. Tellingly Gage is selective on what he lets his waiting audience in on.

There is a whole world out there that doesn't buy into this carnival sideshow creating doubt about WTC collapses as a sub-indusrty.

You might want to check out what honest self-respecting professionals think.

forums.randi.org...

Richard Gage and his organization post videos religiously. Whether it is him giving a presentation at a community college or speaking to someone who just happens to walk up to his booth during an architects convention that has no idea what he is talking about. However, we have seen that when someone mops the floor with Richard, or at the very least challenges his beliefs, he does not post videos or advertise them at his ae911truth.org website.

Yes, he posts videos of the most mundane conversations in which he tries to get these old geezers (barely in their right mind) to sign his petition, however, he does not post a video on his website with him debating a lead researcher in the 9/11 Truth debunking movement, Mark Roberts, when they both appeared on a coast-to-coast satellite interview on a local cable television show broadcasting to New York’s 8.3 million citizens. Why? Because Richard Gage got his rear-end handed to him

Mike

Uh that's cause Gage wants to present his movement in a positive light. Why show nasty people? JREF edits out a lot of things too. Randi lied about Rupert Sheldrake for example. It's documented.

I saw the debate between Mark Roberts and Richard Gage. Gage won, and the majority of commentators on Google Video agreed with that. Your view that Roberts won is your opinion only. That's not what most said. Roberts is not an engineer. He's a tour guide. All he did was threw ad hominem attacks.

Originally posted by pteridine
reply to post by WWu777

 

You should be used to dumb statements; Gage provides the example on a daily basis and you follow him, devotedly.
As to reading all of the statements, I must confess that I suspended my reading after noticing a zealous sameness about the statements. It would be safe to say that all are truly convinced and reading their testimonials is as pointless as listening to born again's prosetylize.
I have considered that they might be right. I then looked at evidence and concluded that they are wrong. I will hold that position until evidence is brought to light that would change it.
In general, this seems to be a faith-based movement that requires suspension of reality and a high level of self-induced fantasy.

For a detailed examination of Gage's inconsistencies and blunders, this website might interest you...if you are brave enough to read it.
ae911truth.info...

That site is LOW and SCUMMY. Nothing but nasty ad hominem attacks on it. It reflects your poor taste. You guys are all about conjecture, and character assassinations, even of good people like Richard Gage.

That site proves nothing except how nasty and desperate they are. They do not prove that Gage is dishonest. They just make stuff up and focus on little things that are their own speculation. It's shameless.

Originally posted by TrickoftheShade
Just for my own entertainment I've been going through the list of AE911 Truth architects and engineers. So far one has been a recently graduated student who doesn't seem to have found a full time job yet, one is a kitchen designer, and one has absolutely no evidence of any engineering work on the web at all.

None of this proves anything of course. But put it this way - it hasn't surprised me.

Then you are not really reading then, you're only looking to ridicule the truth. Look what I found. These are people with decades of experience in structural engineering.

William Rice, BS CE, MS CE, PE – Licensed Professional Engineer, State of Vermont. Worked on structural steel and concrete buildings in Boston, New York, and Philadelphia for two of the nation’s largest building construction companies; the Austin Company and the George A. Fuller Construction Company. Former Professor at Vermont Technical College where he taught engineering materials, structures lab, and other building related courses for over 20 years.

* Essay Vermont Guardian 3/1/07: "Having worked on structural steel buildings as a civil engineer in the era when the Twin Towers were designed and constructed, I found some disturbing discrepancies and omissions concerning their collapse on 9/11. ...

The interesting fact is that each of these 110-story Twin Towers fell upon itself in about ten seconds at nearly free-fall speed. This violates Newton’s Law of Conservation of Momentum that would require that as the stationary inertia of each floor is overcome by being hit, the mass (weight) increases and the free-fall speed decreases.

Even if Newton’s Law is ignored, the prevailing theory would have us believe that each of the Twin Towers inexplicably collapsed upon itself crushing all 287 massive columns on each floor while maintaining a free-fall speed as if the 100,000, or more, tons of supporting structural-steel framework underneath didn't exist.

Controlled demolition is so politically unthinkable that the media not only demeans the messenger but also ridicules and "debunks" the message rather than provide investigative reporting. Curiously, it took 441 days for the president’s 9/11 Commission to start an "investigation" into a tragedy where more than 2,500 WTC lives were taken. The Commission’s investigation also didn't include the possibility of controlled-demolition, nor did it include an investigation into the "unusual and unprecedented" manner in which WTC Building #7 collapsed. www.vermontguardian.com...


* Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition:

"About a year ago I became aware of the unprecedented collapse of WTC Building 7 and the Twin Towers at free-fall speed. Professor Steven Jones' video lecture was a stunning revelation and a wake-up call. My experience and further research confirmed the uncomfortable facts as presented by Professor Jones.

I also found it disturbing that most politicians seem to have little interest in exploring any theory other than the official jetliners / fires-caused-the-collapses theory. I was told the following in a response letter from one of our representatives in Washington: "Regarding conspiracy theories surrounding the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks on the Pentagon and the World Trade Center, a number of theories questioning the events that occurred on and before September 11, 2001 have circulated. They are patently false. Several videos have been posted on the internet on this subject, and they too are false."... "The 9/11 Commission, a bipartisan group of nationally respected individuals, evaluated all relevant testimony and documents related to the events and provided a detailed account of what actually happened on that fateful morning." However, this "nationally respected" 9/11 Commission failed to include some very important facts and testimonies in their report even though they had to have been aware of them. For example, the 9/11 Commission Report completely omitted the unprecedented collapse of Building 7.

Many of the facts and theories that engineers have learned in such courses as structures, physics, chemistry, metallurgy, etc., have held true for longer than the hundred-year history of structural-steel-framed high-rise buildings and they held true on 9/11/01. Only controlled demolition could have provided the types of building collapses displayed three times on that fateful day." www.ae911truth.org...

-------------------------------------------

Hans De Jonge – Mechanical engineer (diploma 1966), structural engineer and civil engineer concrete and steel (diploma 1972). 20 years experience as a structural engineer. Currently adviser and technical controller on a house-building project.

* Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition:

"In January 1970 I visited the Twin Towers under construction as a student structural engineering and was impressed by the sophisticated design and the new (for me) building philosophy of the huge inner columns and the outside steel frame leaving an enormous office space without any column on every floor. The impact of one airplane cannot damage this large structure very much because the support is instantly re-arranged to the undamaged support system. The total collapse is therefore technically impossible." www.ae911truth.org...

More later.

More experienced structural engineering professionals that you online BSers should be listening to.

Edward E. Knesl, MS Eng, PE – Licensed Professional Civil and Structural Engineer, State of Arizona. Thirty five years of domestic and international experience in commercial and transportation projects, including: Structural Design and Analysis, Construction Administration and Management, Plan Review, and Special Inspection.

* Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition:

"We design and analyze buildings for the overturning stability to resist the lateral loads with the combination of the gravity loads. Any tall structure failure mode would be a fall over to its side. It is impossible that heavy steel columns could collapse at the fraction of the second within each story and subsequently at each floor bellow.

We do not know the phenomenon of the high rise building to disintegrate internally faster than the free fall of the debris coming down from the top.

The engineering science and the law of physics simply doesn't know such possibility. Only very sophisticated controlled demolition can achieve such result, eliminating the natural dampening effect of the structural framing huge mass that should normally stop the partial collapse. The pancake theory is a fallacy, telling us that more and more energy would be generated to accelerate the collapse. Where would such energy would be coming from?" www.ae911truth.org...

Listen to this expert in structural steel.

Joseph Testa, BS CE, PE – Former Civil Engineer, Department of Transportation, State of New York. Former Licensed Professional Engineer, State of New York. Experienced with Highway Design, Drainage Design, Pedestrian access Design, Metals Engineering and Structural Steel Quality Assurance. Provided quality assurance for structural steel used in New York State bridges, and analyzing and designing repairs for deteriorated and otherwise damaged metal bridges.

* Comment 2/6/06: " I've worked in structural steel for years and I've studied major structural collapses. I don't believe the collapse witnessed was possible due to the planes and ensuing fires alone. I don't believe the core verticals would have buckled as they apparently did, unless first taken out from below. I don't claim to know who might have been responsible, but a preponderance of eyewitness testimony supports secondary [explosive] devices.

IMO, nobody knows what really happened, despite countless claims of certainty on both sides of the aisle. ...

Ideally, we need to see an accurate scale model, or at the minimum, an accurate detailed computer simulation & recreation to show that such a complete instantaneous failure of the central vertical columns is even possible." www.dailykos.com...


* Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition:

"The speed at which the buildings fell implied that the central cores provided virtually no vertical resistance at any point during the collapses. When the live television commenter stated that there must have been tons of explosives on site to cause such a collapse, I found myself in agreement and assumed it would all come out during the investigation.

Combined with the reports of "molten metal", inexplicably high temperatures recorded even by satellite, rapid removal and destruction of the structural evidence, the finding of tiny fragments of human bone thrown laterally from the structures, the missing pentagon trillions on 9/10; I am very concerned about the kind of world we are leaving to the next generations. 9/11 and the ensuing cover up is a big part of that concern." www.ae911truth.org...

See more here:

patriotsquestion911.com...

This one has very impressive credentials.

Nathan S. Lomba, BS CE, PE, SE, M.ASCE – Licensed Professional Civil Engineer, State of California. Licensed Professional Civil and Structural Engineer, State of Idaho. Experience ranges from custom residential to heavy industrial structures. Major project involvements include: Lead civil/structural engineer on a $700 million project for the U.S. Air Force; structural design engineer for a 41,000 sq. ft. Pulp Machine Building; and Resident Engineer on a 550 MW Natural-gas fired power plant. Member, American Concrete Institute (ACI). Member, American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE). Charter Member, Structural Engineering Institute (SEI). Professional Member, American Institute of Steel Construction (AISC). 39 years experience.

* Statement in support of Architects and Engineers petition:

"I began having doubts about, so called, official explanations for the collapse of the WTC towers soon after the explanations surfaced. The gnawing question that lingers in my mind is: How did the structures collapse in near symmetrical fashion when the apparent precipitating causes were asymmetrical loading? The collapses defies common logic from an elementary structural engineering perspective. “If” you accept the argument that fire protection covering was damaged to such an extent that structural members in the vicinity of the aircraft impacts were exposed to abnormally high temperatures, and “if” you accept the argument that the temperatures were high enough to weaken the structural framing, that still does not explain the relatively concentric nature of the failures.

Neither of the official precipitating sources for the collapses, namely the burning aircraft, were centered within the floor plan of either tower; both aircraft were off-center when they finally came to rest within the respective buildings. This means that, given the foregoing assumptions, heating and weakening of the structural framing would have been constrained to the immediate vicinity of the burning aircraft. Heat transmission (diffusion) through the steel members would have been irregular owing to differing sizes of the individual members; and, the temperature in the members would have dropped off precipitously the further away the steel was from the flames—just as the handle on a frying pan doesn't get hot at the same rate as the pan on the burner of the stove. These factors would have resulted in the structural framing furthest from the flames remaining intact and possessing its full structural integrity, i.e., strength and stiffness.

Structural steel is highly ductile, when subjected to compression and bending it buckles and bends long before reaching its tensile or shear capacity. Under the given assumptions, “if” the structure in the vicinity of either burning aircraft started to weaken, the superstructure above would begin to lean in the direction of the burning side. The opposite, intact, side of the building would resist toppling until the ultimate capacity of the structure was reached, at which point, a weak-link failure would undoubtedly occur. Nevertheless, the ultimate failure mode would have been a toppling of the upper floors to one side—much like the topping of a tall redwood tree—not a concentric, vertical collapse.

For this reason alone, I rejected the official explanation for the collapse of the WTC towers out of hand. Subsequent evidence supporting controlled, explosive demolition of the two buildings are more in keeping with the observed collapse modalities and only serve to validate my initial misgivings as to the causes for the structural failures. " www.ae911truth.org...

I'll bet none of you online BSers have credentials to match that!

A question for your anti-truthers:

How many of you know how to fly a 757? If you can't, then listen to this professional pilot who can and has been for 35 years.

patriotsquestion911.com...

Capt. Russ Wittenberg, U.S. Air Force – Retired commercial pilot. Flew for Pan Am and United Airlines for 35 years. Aircraft flown: Boeing 707, 720, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, and 777. 30,000+ total hours flown. Had previously flown the actual two United Airlines aircraft that were hijacked on 9/11 (Flight 93, which impacted in Pennsylvania, and Flight 175, the second plane to hit the WTC). Former U.S. Air Force fighter pilot with over 100 combat missions.

* Video interview 9/11 Ripple Effect 8/07: "I flew the two actual aircraft which were involved in 9/11; the Fight number 175 and Flight 93, the 757 that allegedly went down in Shanksville and Flight 175 is the aircraft that's alleged to have hit the South Tower. I don't believe it's possible for, like I said, for a terrorist, a so-called terrorist to train on a [Cessna] 172, then jump in a cockpit of a 757-767 class cockpit, and vertical navigate the aircraft, lateral navigate the aircraft, and fly the airplane at speeds exceeding it's design limit speed by well over 100 knots, make high-speed high-banked turns, exceeding -- pulling probably 5, 6, 7 G's. And the aircraft would literally fall out of the sky. I couldn't do it and I'm absolutely positive they couldn't do it." americanbuddhist.net...


* Article 7/17/05: "The government story they handed us about 9/11 is total B.S. plain and simple." … Wittenberg convincingly argued there was absolutely no possibility that Flight 77 could have "descended 7,000 feet in two minutes, all the while performing a steep 280 degree banked turn before crashing into the Pentagon's first floor wall without touching the lawn."…

"For a guy to just jump into the cockpit and fly like an ace is impossible - there is not one chance in a thousand," said Wittenberg, recalling that when he made the jump from Boeing 727's to the highly sophisticated computerized characteristics of the 737's through 767's it took him considerable time to feel comfortable flying." www.arcticbeacon.com...


* Audio Interview 9/16/04: Regarding Flight 77, which allegedly hit the Pentagon. "The airplane could not have flown at those speeds which they said it did without going into what they call a high speed stall. The airplane won’t go that fast if you start pulling those high G maneuvers at those bank angles. … To expect this alleged airplane to run these maneuvers with a total amateur at the controls is simply ludicrous...

It’s roughly a 100 ton airplane. And an airplane that weighs 100 tons all assembled is still going to have 100 tons of disassembled trash and parts after it hits a building. There was no wreckage from a 757 at the Pentagon. … The vehicle that hit the Pentagon was not Flight 77. We think, as you may have heard before, it was a cruise missile." 911underground.com...

There are many more experienced pilots with such quotes of course. See here: patriotsquestion911.com...

Here's a challenge for you. Find some 757 pilots who say that the 9/11 hijackers were capable of pulling off the maneuvers of Flight 77.

Anti-truthers, listen to what this Air Force Pilot decorated with 17 medals has to say about 9/11 and Flight 77! Do any of you have any flight qualifications comparable to his?! lol

Lt. Col. Jeff Latas, U.S. Air Force (ret) – Former combat fighter pilot. Aerospace engineer. Currently Captain at a major airline. Combat experience includes Desert Storm and four tours of duty in Northern and Southern Watch. Aircraft flown: McDonnell Douglas F-15E Strike Eagle and General Dynamics F-111 Aardvark fighter/bomber. Former President, U.S. Air Force Accident Investigation Board. Also served as Pentagon Weapons Requirement Officer and as a member of the Pentagon's Quadrennial Defense Review. Awarded Distinguish Flying Cross for Heroism, four Air Medals, four Meritorious Service Medals, and nine Aerial Achievement Medals. 20-year Air Force career.

* Audio interview with Rob Balsamo 6/25/07: Regarding the 9/11 Commission's account of the impact of Flight 77 at the Pentagon and discrepancies with the actual Flight Data Recorder information:

"After I did my own analysis of it, it's obvious that there's discrepancies between the two stories; between the 9/11 Commission and the flight data recorder information. And I think that's where we really need to focus a lot of our attention to get the help that we need in order to put pressure on government agencies to actually do a real investigation of 9/11. And not just from a security standpoint, but from even an aviation standpoint, like any accident investigation would actually help the aviators out by finding reasons for things happening. ...

The things that really got my attention were the amount of descent rate that you had to have at the end of the flight, of Flight 77, that would have made it practically impossible to hit the light poles. [Editor's note: Destruction of the light poles near the Pentagon by Flight 77 was stated in the 9/11 Commission Report.] Essentially it would have been too high at that point to the point of impact where the main body of the airplane was hitting between the first and second floor of the Pentagon. ...

You know, I'd ride my bike to the Pentagon. So, you know I'm a little bit familiar with that area. [Editor's note: Lt. Col. Latas served as a Weapons Requirement Officer at the Pentagon.] But, you know, that kind of descent rate it would have been impossible essentially for the results that we see physically from what the flight data recorder was recording. Like I say, that's an area that I think deserves explanation. ...

The ground track [the path of the airplane] is off from the 9/11 Commission. There are several things that can be brought up but it's been a while since I've seen the film and looked at the flight data recorder. And I can't think of all the discrepancies I saw, but there are several there. [The film he refers to is the video documentary, Pandora's Black Box, Chapter 2, Flight of American 77.] ...

And I think that we Americans need to demand further investigation just to clarify the discrepancies that you've [Pilots for 9/11 Truth] found. And I think that we need to be getting on the phone with our Congressmen and women and letting them know that we don't accept the excuses that we're hearing now, that we want true investigators to do a true investigation." video.google.com...

[edit on 26-8-2009 by WWu777]

Originally posted by WWu777
You guys are all about conjecture, and character assassinations, even of good people like Richard Gage.

That site proves nothing except how nasty and desperate they are. They do not prove that Gage is dishonest. They just make stuff up and focus on little things that are their own speculation. It's shameless.

Do you work for Gage?

Are you going to be at the New Jersey mosque on Sept 10th when he speaks?

Can you tell us when he will produce proper documentation of his claims?

Have you ever considered why so many people who have nothing to gain from discrediting him say he's dishonest - and a crackpot to boot?

He calls into question the works of hundreds of independent professionals who worked on the NIST and other reports. He insults people with demonstrable credibility at every turn, calling them government shills, part of a cover-up, etc.

Then he drags out a list of nobodies who signed a piece of paper he shoved under their face. He hasnt even reached his stated goal of 1000 signatories he was supposed to have by 2008.

Extensive documentation on WTC collapses exist, reviewed by some of the top minds worldwide. They don't feel compelled to sell their version of truth to audiences.

Facts speak for themselves.

Disinformation you have to sell.


Mike









[edit on 26-8-2009 by mmiichael]

Originally posted by mmiichael
Facts speak for themselves.
Disinformation you have to sell.

Nothing you say has any facts to it. Everything you've said has been disinformation. You either missed or ignored my post to you on the first page. I suggest you read it:

www.abovetopsecret.com...

Originally posted by WWu777

That site is LOW and SCUMMY. Nothing but nasty ad hominem attacks on it. It reflects your poor taste. You guys are all about conjecture, and character assassinations, even of good people like Richard Gage.

That site proves nothing except how nasty and desperate they are. They do not prove that Gage is dishonest. They just make stuff up and focus on little things that are their own speculation. It's shameless.

I"m sure he is a good person with good intentions. He is just completely out of his depth and he's taken a bunch of fellow travelers along for the swim. The website shamelessly tells the truth and shamelessly shows his errors in detail. Gage admits on his web page that he has no expertise in building collapse and then goes on to play the expert. He perpetuates errors in his slide shows long after they have been proven false. He is either an incompetent good person with good intentions or a good liar with good intentions. His minions dote on his eccentric version of reality. No one of consequence believes a word of what he has to say.
You might want to suggest that he and his organization try to get a reinvestigation referendum on a ballot. Certainly, with all those qualified professionals they will easily get that done and then the indictments can begin soon after.

Originally posted by zerbot565
heh

go read his books, go to his lectures and watch his videos ,
who does he accuse of terrorism : usa and israel.

throwing dirt on chomsky just because he dosnot agree on how a building collapsed is very unmature,

besides he´s main focus of life is language and communication and understanding words and their meanings.

so when he sais its the usa whos doing the terrorism around the world then he is right from the begining all a long.

Hey, you are correct here. Some good things he says are the government lies, Can't trust Bush. And if we ask him what PULL-IT means. He should be able to answer that as language is his speciality.