AIA Distances Themselves from Richard Gage

Originally posted by Six Sigma
I'm surprised no truthers have really commented on this article.

What's to comment on? The article is written by a biased, close-minded, ignorant, unresearched individual who clearly accepts the official conspiracy theory over any independent conspiracy theory without question and without having been shown any evidence.

The article also incorrectly states that the "molten steel" claim, for instance, has been "rebutted" by (insert paid government agency here). Just because NIST said there was no molten steel does not make it so. Nor does it make all other witnesses from several different companies/organizations liars, or that the images/videos are all fake.

That blatantly incorrect point alone negates anything else the author has to say, and destroys his credibility.

I'll be writing the author of the article notifying him of his incorrect assertions about molten steel, and I'll be contacting Scott Frank (media relations for AIA) for a little more clarification of his statements as well.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

What's to comment on? The article is written by a biased, close-minded, ignorant, unresearched individual who clearly accepts the official conspiracy theory over any independent conspiracy theory without question and without having been shown any evidence.

You are incorrect (as usual) BoneZ. Jeremy Stahl who is the author of this piece is also a writer for Slate magazine. He is VERY well researched in 9/11 and the 9/11 Truth Movement. He has written many articles over the past several years. He has seen the evidence and like 99.99% of the rest of the sane population, he knows 9/11 wasn't an inside job.

The article also incorrectly states that the "molten steel" claim, for instance, has been "rebutted" by (insert paid government agency here). Just because NIST said there was no molten steel does not make it so. Nor does it make all other witnesses from several different companies/organizations liars, or that the images/videos are all fake.

Please provide the source where I can read about the molten material analysis.

That blatantly incorrect point alone negates anything else the author has to say, and destroys his credibility.

To be quite honest, I was more interested in what the AIA had to say about Gage...AND the FACT that not a SINGLE architect attended his slide show presentation.

I'll be writing the author of the article notifying him of his incorrect assertions about molten steel, and I'll be contacting Scott Frank (media relations for AIA) for a little more clarification of his statements as well.

Again, if you can point out the analysis that was completed on this material..I would appreciate it.

HINT: you cant because an analysis was not completed.

Jeremy Stahls Articles regarding 9/11 and Conspiracies:

The Rise of "Truth"
How did 9/11 conspiracism enter the mainstream?
www.slate.com...

Where Were You When You First Heard?
The other question I asked myself for the 10th anniversary of 9/11.
www.slate.com...

The Theory vs. the Facts
9/11 conspiracy theorists responded to refutations by alleging more cover-ups.
www.slate.com...

Where Did 9/11 Conspiracies Come From?
The fringe.
www.slate.com...

You're Not Paranoid if It's True
What happens when believers in 9/11 conspiracy theories change their minds.
www.slate.com...

The Culture Gabfest, "The Paranoid Style in American Podcasting" Edition
Listen to Slate's show about 9/11 conspiracy theories, the iPhone app Instagram, and Suits on the USA Network.
www.slate.com...

Originally posted by Six Sigma
So, how many Architects showed up? ZERO!

that still doesn't mean richard gage is wrong, now does it? you're welcome, debunker.

Originally posted by Six Sigma
He has seen the evidence and like 99.99% of the rest of the sane population, he knows 9/11 wasn't an inside job.

well, people, this is how nazism started. probably communism too. lol. "you're wrong, we are right".

Originally posted by Six Sigma
You are incorrect (as usual) BoneZ.

You forgot to add "in my opinion" in the above statement. It's only your opinion that I'm incorrect.

Originally posted by Six Sigma
He is VERY well researched in 9/11 and the 9/11 Truth Movement. He has seen the evidence...

Writing biased articles that quote the official conspiracy theory doesn't make one "very well researched".

You do not live with him nor hang around him 24/7. You have no idea what he has or has not researched, or what evidence he has or has not seen.

Originally posted by Six Sigma
...and like 99.99% of the rest of the sane population, he knows 9/11 wasn't an inside job.

Did you forget already that there are more scientists, engineers, etc that have come out publicly against the official conspiracy theory than have came out publicly supporting it?

Naturally scientists and engineers are smarter than your average populace, but your numbers couldn't be farther from the truth.

Originally posted by Six Sigma
Please provide the source where I can read about the molten material analysis.

No analysis. Witness testimony is plenty sufficient.

Emergency personnel are called into court on a daily basis all over the world as credible witnesses. It is both disturbing and disgusting for anyone to discount that professional emergency and controlled demolition personnel have testified to seeing molten steel at ground zero.

NIST flat-out lied about there not being any witnesses to molten steel. NIST flat-out lied about hearing any audible explosions in the video footage of 9/11, yet they were in possession of footage with audible explosions. NIST has zero truthfulness or credibility when they publicly lie about the evidence.

So, anyone who uses NIST as a credible source on 9/11 clearly has either done little to no research, is in denial, or are paid to spin the truth.

Originally posted by Six Sigma
To be quite honest, I was more interested in what the AIA had to say about Gage

As I said, I'll be getting an official statement from the AIA soon when I have an opportunity to contact them.

Originally posted by ritualmurders911


that still doesn't mean richard gage is wrong, now does it? you're welcome, debunker.

Care to take a guess as to why not a single architect attended? I mean the name of his cult is "Architects & Engineers" for 9/11 Truth.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

You forgot to add "in my opinion" in the above statement. It's only your opinion that I'm incorrect.

No, BoneZ... it's not an opinion. It is a fact that he is well researched as I showed you in the links above that take you to his articles. If you only look at one of them look at this:

The Theory vs. the Facts
9/11 conspiracy theorists responded to refutations by alleging more cover-ups.
www.slate.com...

You do not live with him nor hang around him 24/7. You have no idea what he has or has not researched, or what evidence he has or has not seen.

You don't live with Richard Gage, I assume. Yet, you are one of his "sustaining memebers" that gives him your hard earned money every month.

I know what Jeremy has researched. I read his articles. Again, click above and you will see.

Naturally scientists and engineers are smarter than your average populace, but your numbers couldn't be farther from the truth.

Well...I disagree.

Emergency personnel are called into court on a daily basis all over the world as credible witnesses. It is both disturbing and disgusting for anyone to discount that professional emergency and controlled demolition personnel have testified to seeing molten steel at ground zero.

NIST flat-out lied about there not being any witnesses to molten steel. NIST flat-out lied about hearing any audible explosions in the video footage of 9/11, yet they were in possession of footage with audible explosions. NIST has zero truthfulness or credibility when they publicly lie about the evidence.

So, anyone who uses NIST as a credible source on 9/11 clearly has either done little to no research, is in denial, or are paid to spin the truth.

Come on BoneZ, I realize being a truther, you are seriously misinformed. But, I thought you were smarter than that. I am not saying there wasn't molten metal at ground zero. Heck, maybe it was steel. The fact is, you and I will never know. IT WAS NOT ANALYZED. You can not determine what type of material it was by looking at it.

As I said, I'll be getting an official statement from the AIA soon when I have an opportunity to contact them.

I wont hold my breath...but just in case you do, you should hold your breath waiting for a response. They have more important things to do than respond to inquiries from a Conspiracy Theorist.

Originally posted by Six Sigma
I am not saying there wasn't molten metal at ground zero. Heck, maybe it was steel.

Well maybe you're not saying there wasn't molten steel at ground zero, but your buddy Jeremy did say that in this latest article. And he even points to NIST as one of his sources because NIST did, indeed, falsely state that they knew of nobody who claimed there was molten steel at ground zero.

NIST lied, plain and simple And because NIST lied, your buddy Jeremy is perpetuating that lie. So, again, he has either not researched 9/11 very well, or he's in denial, or he's paid to perpetuate the lie.

Originally posted by Six Sigma
You can not determine what type of material it was by looking at it.

No, YOU cannot determine what type of material it was. I've been working with steel and aluminum for the past decade. I could tell. And I'm reasonably certain that trained firefighters and controlled demolition experts would be able to tell also.

Originally posted by Six Sigma
They have more important things to do than respond to inquiries from a Conspiracy Theorist.

You do realize that because NIST lied, they have no credibility. They even stated in their report that their findings cannot be taken as fact or used as evidence in a court of law. Therefore, the official version of events from this standpoint is moot because there is no credible evidence.

What other evidence was presented to you? Have you seen the results from the DNA testing? Have you seen any definitive proof at all that the official version is what it was claimed to be? You're accepting the official version based on faith only.

Since no definitive and verifiable evidence was presented, and since the investigative agencies blatantly lied, the official version is a conspiracy theory. Therefore YOU are also a conspiracy theorist as well.

No matter what side of the 9/11 fence we sit on, we're all conspiracy theorists. Never forget that.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

You do realize that because NIST lied, they have no credibility. They even stated in their report that their findings cannot be taken as fact or used as evidence in a court of law. Therefore, the official version of events from this standpoint is moot because there is no credible evidence.

You and a few truthers believe this. Rational thinking people do not.

What other evidence was presented to you? Have you seen the results from the DNA testing? \

BoneZ, I have been researching 9/11 since 2005. (PentaLawn video on EBaums world) I have read books, met family members of victims ( I live in Massachusetts), I spoke with FEMA reps... (one that used to be mentioned in a conspiracy- you can look him up on Google.) I have spoken with professionals in their fields that pertain to aircrafts, structural engineering, etc. I took a trip to Batterymarch Park in Quincy, Ma, to speak with NFPA members regarding fire behaviors, laws, damages, etc.

I was able to work in Downtown Manhattan for several months. I oversaw the completion of a 52 story building a literal stones throw away from the 9/11 Memorial. (U2U me if you would like to know what building)
During this time, I was able to speak with many firefighters from several houses. My brother was a grief counselor and was at ground zero a few days post 9/11 where he made many friends during such a tragic time.
I also got to learn about the strength of the Unions in NYC. I can tell you, work with those guys for a short time.

Have you seen any definitive proof at all that the official version is what it was claimed to be? You're accepting the official version based on faith only.

No, Bonez... read above what research I have done. I have done far more than Sir Richard Gage. I have faith in no one but me. You, however have place YOUR faith in a charlatan. "Give me your money, and I will get a real investigation." - Richard Gage.

Since no definitive and verifiable evidence was presented, and since the investigative agencies blatantly lied, the official version is a conspiracy theory. Therefore YOU are also a conspiracy theorist as well.

I'm sorry you feel this way. Perhaps not too much of your life (And money) wont be wasted until you realize how wrong you are.

No matter what side of the 9/11 fence we sit on, we're all conspiracy theorists. Never forget that.

To an extent, yes.

Originally posted by _BoneZ_

Well maybe you're not saying there wasn't molten steel at ground zero, but your buddy Jeremy did say that in this latest article. And he even points to NIST as one of his sources because NIST did, indeed, falsely state that they knew of nobody who claimed there was molten steel at ground zero.

NIST lied, plain and simple And because NIST lied, your buddy Jeremy is perpetuating that lie. So, again, he has either not researched 9/11 very well, or he's in denial, or he's paid to perpetuate the lie.

So, for poops and giggles...lets say there was Molten Metal. Please answer these questions:

If the molten steel was observed a significant while after the collapses - 1 day, 1 week, or 1 month - when did it melt? a) before the collapse b) during the collapse c) after the collapse
If you answered a or b): Why did the molten steel not disperse, mix with cooler dust and debris, and resolidify before 1 day (week, month) had passed and the molten steel was observed?
If you answered c): What heat source was responsible for melting the steel, and how was it tapped (ignited...)?
If you answered c): If you say it was a specific and suspicious pre-planted agent such as a form of thermite, why did that agent not disperse and mix with the other dust and debris and become ineffective? How could it stay concentrated in sufficient amounts during the collapse to produce a bulk amount of molten steel after the collapse?
If you answered c): Why did the agent not melt steel before or during the collapse? Did it malfunction? Or was it never intended to play a role with regard to the collapse itself?

reply to post by Six Sigma


no, it's probably because most of the "architects" (just like any other group of more than 2 people) are status-quo pussie* just like yourself, "debunker". have you ever thought of that?

Originally posted by ritualmurders911
reply to post by Six Sigma

 

no, it's probably because most of the "architects" (just like any other group of more than 2 people) are status-quo pussie* just like yourself, "debunker". have you ever thought of that?

edit on 26-7-2012 by ritualmurders911 because: (no reason given)

I see he was banned. No response needed.

Originally posted by ritualmurders911

Originally posted by Six Sigma
He has seen the evidence and like 99.99% of the rest of the sane population, he knows 9/11 wasn't an inside job.

well, people, this is how nazism started. probably communism too. lol. "you're wrong, we are right".

...and yet more actual Nazis showed up to Hitler's meetings than then number of actual AIA architects did to Gage's presentation.

Please tell me you haven't sent this con artist any money.