The 9/11 Forum

There are many technically incorrect assertions that appear with regular frequency on 9/11 Blogger.

Does anyone know who at 9/11 Blogger is in charge of technical editing?

Who among the moderators at 9/11 Blogger decides whether technical content is true or untrue?

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Considering how sensitive the subject matter is, it is unconscionable to knowingly post technically incorrect information.

The time has come where there is no longer an excuse available for either 9/11 Blogger or AE911T to repeat technically incorrect information.

It is our responsibility to publicly notify those who are posting incorrect technical content of their mistakes and it is their responsibility to correct mistakes when they are pointed out.

>>>>>>>>>

Who should be contacted at AE911T about this problem? We can submit a public letter to the group and simply demand that such mistakes be corrected. Likewise, they should answer the letter publicly.

No more excuses.

Please check out this entry in 9/11 Blogger.

http://911blogger.com/news/2011-04-20/911-experiment-egg-drop-equal-collision-disproves-bazants-pile-driver


I feel like the professional people who should be responsible for technical content of 9/11 Blogger and AE911T are shitting on all the murdered people when they continue to paint "truthers" as morons by encouraging this mentality.


I do not blame the person who posted this at all. His simplicity is not his fault. He is doing nothing wrong in my opinion. Just joining the chorus.

The people that allow a steady stream of this propaganda, people from AE911T who should know better, I blame them.


I believe they shit on everything we do in this forum. It is unconscionable to knowingly spread false technical information on this subject if you should know better.



In my own case, I think they take years of my own time and research and shit all over them when they go on a tour spreading cheap technical lies.

They are not an independent organization that can do whatever it wants. They claim to represent many murdered and victimized people in an event of pivotal historic importance.

They have a responsibility towards all of us to get their facts right. It is not their personal choice. They also drown out other researchers doing much better technical work.

Here is Richard Gage giving the scientific facts concerning the attacks of 9/11

http://911blogger.com/news/2011-04-20/scientific-facts-911-richard-gage-full-presentation-lawrence-tech-university-04182011

He is responsible for getting his facts right. In reality he is using his professional position to get people to believe things that are not true.

That is the reality and every regular reader of this forum knows this is the truth.

Tony Szamboti, you know that what he says is untrue.

He is clearly unqualified to be saying what he is. There is no excuse. These presentations are embarrassing. They shit on the deaths of so many people.

I do not ask anyone to believe what I say. But if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, and smells like a duck, and floats like a duck, please consider the remote possibility that it could be a duck, that's all.

Just as any regular reader would naturally demand correct technical information from official and governmental sources, so you should demand that AE911T present technically correct information.

Why would anyone hold governmental sources accountable while they turn a blind eye to AE911T knowingly presenting incorrect information? Truthers, without truth you are nothing. Worse. Truth is the only power you have.

You should demand truth above all else from all sources.

9/11 Blogger.

Steven Jones post 3 days ago:

"When I jumped into the ring to study 9/11 events in early 2005, I found that there were numerous wild and even conflicting claims. It was the “wild, wild west.” Some were saying that no planes hit the WTC Towers at all, and some said (in 2005 or soon thereafter) an energy beam from space knocked the Towers down. There were NO published peer-reviewed scientific papers in the field. To make a long story VERY short, this confused situation changed via experimental data and peer-reviewed papers published by Kevin Ryan, Dr. Niels Harrit, Dr. Frank Legge, Dr. Jeffrey Farrer, James Gourley, Dr. Crockett Grabbe, Tony Szamboti, and myself and others. Now the science of 9/11 and the use of pyrotechnics/explosives is on firm experimental footing and serious challengers to our papers will need to find a way to publish peer-reviewed papers of their own (in established journals preferably) if they can. (They have not done so.) That's how science works-- peer-reviewed published papers stand until challenged by another peer-reviewed paper. This has been the pattern for scientific progress for over 300 years, since Isaac Newton.

In a parallel way, experimental science came to the rescue when there were conflicting claims regarding Cold Fusion back in 1989. Unless you were on another planet or too young, you will recall the fervor generated by claims of working water-heaters by means of d-d fusion in metals by two chemists, P&F. They claimed “excess heat” production without neutron production via d-d fusion. I was thrown into the middle of the fray because a team (which I headed) claimed a MUCH smaller effect, but again involving d-d fusion in metals, with certain metals facilitating fusion better than other metals. Our paper was published in the peer-reviewed journal NATURE in April 1989; P&F withdrew their paper which they had submitted to the same journal about the same time."

He goes on to talk about cold fusion here


True science? This is a very dishonest post.

It sounds like the JREF forum. He cares about promoting his own narrow research only. Only a small group of researchers are ever mentioned by this person, yet it is promoted as the only legitimate research existing.

Steven Jones: "To make a long story VERY short, this confused situation changed via experimental data and peer-reviewed papers published by Kevin Ryan, Dr. Niels Harrit, Dr. Frank Legge, Dr. Jeffrey Farrer, James Gourley, Dr. Crockett Grabbe, Tony Szamboti, and myself and others."

In reality, he is personally responsible for increasing the confusion as the blogs posted on 9/11 Blogger demonstrate daily. They represent just a more advanced layer of confusion, blind to any research other than their own. Dishonest in presenting their research as the only legitimate "professional" research available. Unaccountable for mistakes they present to the public as the truth to other researchers. This is false advertising.


This confused situation changed? What a bunch of self-serving crap. How is the air up there. guys?


They do not give a shit about the truth. If they did they wouldn't promote themselves so much. They would present themselves honestly. If they cared about the truth they would promote those doing the most interesting research. They would have noticed the work of femr, for example.

They wouldn't simply ignore the measurements of femr. They would change their presentation as research develops. 2010 was an excellent year for research, but they ignored everything but their own stuff.



Sounds like JREF, just reversed.

There is no recognition of HTFCPNST-type perimeter movement. There is no comprehension of collapse mechanics. No interest in learning about the actual collapse mechanics. No comprehension of much of anything but his fixation on dust.

Just a lecture about peer review as some ultimate symbol of "truth". HTFCPNST-type movement has not been "peer reviewed" so it doesn't exist.


They are accountable to other researchers though they act as if they are not. Continuing to ignore the obvious hypocrisy is immoral.

AE911T is an odd duck. I found the official explanations lacking and when I discovered AE911T I signed their petition calling for an new and proper investigation. I met Gage at one of his dog and pony shows in NYC in 9/09 (met Tony Szamboti at the same time) and offered to volunteer to help the "cause". Gage like my efforts on behalf of his group and begged me to join his Board of Directors. I discovered there were few technically qualified active members, no research was being done by AE911T, no effort to compile or monitor the research that was being done... aside from that which support their explosive controlled demolition theory. I tried to move the group to be more interested in technical work, to explore the structures in detail, to undertake an FEA of the twin towers, and to work with the many architects and engineers who they claim to speak for... but in fact never speak to except to ask for financial support.

Lately they have asked a few to participate in their video presentations. Most of those who have shown a lack of understanding of the structure and have shown little actual knowledge of the observations. I left AE911T within 4 months being suspected of being a dis info agent and spoiling their group and their message. Upon my departure I began to look into their specific evidence claims in their Blueprint for Truth and found many of them were not evidence of what they claimed them to be and some of them were simply rubbish made up from whole cloth.

I sent a professional letter to Gage noting one or two of their misstatements and they did nothing to change them or engage me in why they made them, where they came from and so forth. I even went to an event last summer to personally speak to Gage and then again last Fall. He continues to make false statements citing them as evidence despite my having told him it was not smart to do this as in the end it will completely undermine the "credibility" he (and his members) claim they have speaking for 1000's of building professionals.

I find myself increasingly alienated from this group though I support a new investigation and a proper official explanation for the destruction of the three towers. Gage is now in the 911 Truth business and making a good living, traveling around the country and the world, and treated like a celebrity. His presentations have a "revivalist" feel to them and though AE911T's members don't admit it, the group is more like a cult than a professional organization. Anyone who questions anything they claim is quickly silenced and expelled. Belief in ECD and their BFT is their litmus test to "be on board".

AE911T is 100% Gage. It's his baby and he controls it completely, everything else is a rubber stamped or done by AE911T sycophants. Nothing with change at AE911T unless Gage decides to make changes and he's really backed himself into a position and he's not able to back out without looking like a major bonehead. With so many truth people telling him he and AE911T are "THE" best shot that the truth movement has, he's going to ride this pony for as long as he can and a new investigation will end the party for him.

So it makes sense that those profiting from demanding a new investigation (financially, emotionally etc.) will milk this as long as they can and cause confusion and not actually doing research leading to understanding is in their interest.

Gage claims to want to debate scientists and engineers and none will do so. No engineering schools will touch a 911 symposium and so he uses this as evidence that these schools are in the pocket of the OCT and afraid to take on the "911 Truth facts".

If anything will change this AE911T will or must be made to engage with scientists on the technical matters and establish the actual observables...such as the excellent work of Major Tom, femr2, Achimspok, OWE, Enik and others on this forum... at a major university such as Harvard. The web environment is simply too unreliable and poisoned for such a debate to be taken seriously. I would like to see this arranged for the 10th anniversary memorial. I suppose that AE911T might jump at the opportunity (they claim it's what they wanted for years) and once and for all the discussion could be return to a reality based one. I only wonder if participants and observers will leave such an event, unchanged and clinging to their "own" facts.

911 Blogger promotes a specific agenda of Jones, Haritt, Gage, Ryan, Cole (AE911T board member), Legge, Hoffman, Ashley, Erik Larsen and a few others. It censors anyone who attempts to disagree.

Any objective analysis of the 911 truth movement will reveal more smoke and mirrors and passion than hard irrefutable facts.

Houston, we've got a problem...

A big problem. But at least we know who is responsible for it: Richard Gage.


Here is the expert himself giving his case a few days ago.

http://revolutionarypolitics.com/?p=5346

If anyone is bored enough you can try to count the number of inaccurate claims he makes.

In 5 videos. The first video is a bunch of speculation. I see no evidence or proof of anything in it. In it he says: "Our commitment to you tonight is to speak the truth..."

Anyone that reads this forum regularly can see he doesn't know what he is doing. A regular reader here knows much more than he does.

He needs a public letter sent to him concerning his errors. He will try to avoid all debate. How can he be trapped into an honest debate?

How can AE911T stay so sheltered from any new research? It is like they live on the moon.



If it quacks like a duck.....

Tom, your site is one of the best on the net. We need to SOMEHOW get it out there.
Perhaps produce a documentary that contains all this research in time for the 10th anniversary? That way, we can spread it over youtube and similar sites and hopefully, it will grow legs.
We don't have long!

It needs to be cleaned up a tiny bit more. It took me a few years to come up with a product. It is almost ready.

AE911T is 100% Gage. It's his baby and he controls it completely, everything else is a rubber stamped or done by AE911T sycophants. Nothing with change at AE911T unless Gage decides to make changes and he's really backed himself into a position and he's not able to back out without looking like a major bonehead.

Who is the true hero in the story of the Wizard of Oz? It was the dog, Toto.


This is an important moment so please watch how Toto masterfully plays the situation while the rest are transfixed by the smoke and mirrors of an imaginary Wizard.



Dorothy: "You are a very bad man!"

Richard Gage?: "I'm a good man, but a very bad Wizard".


Let us learn from Toto.