The 9/11 Forum

by **Oystein** » Tue Feb 07, 2012 7:24 pm

SnowCrash wrote:I believe the rise to the number you see now was a result of a campaign to reach 1000. That provided impetus and enthusiasm, and some of that impetus and enthusiasm has waned. The additional 600 are, imo, merely an after-effect of the campaign to reach 1000.

Then, if the campaign, impetus and enthusiasm was concluded with reaching 1000 (in january 2010 - more than 2 years ago!), why on earth didn't Gage submit that "Petition" to Congress? Did he ever intend to? Did he forget? I think if there is one Big Lie over at AE911T, it's their calling this thing a "petition" and pretending that Congress is the intended recipient.

SnowCrash wrote:I think you might have him confused with Greg Jenkins...

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid ... 0694803017

Ken Jenkins is the psychologist and video editor, Greg Jenkins is the physicist and Gregg Roberts is the technical writer and maintainer of wtc7.net

oops argh...

I was talking about Greg Jenkins. Buuut the description was a fit

SnowCrash wrote:Hey wait, weren't we talking about a passport ... I have vague memories of this thread being on-topic...

Ahemmmm

by **SanderO** » Tue Feb 07, 2012 8:06 pm

I had my name removed from the AE911T petition because Gage refused to stop lying about stuff. I also don't like their petition asking for an investigation... which I agree with and their proposing that all three towers were CDs.

The reason that they don't turn over their petition is because AE911T is Gage's career and he pays himself more than he made as an architect... another of lie. Roberts and Keogh are compensated as well. AE911T is supposed make their finances open to the public since becoming a 501c(3)... they don't.

They are the pot calling the kettle black.

by **Heretic76** » Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:06 pm

Snow

At least we agree that the crime at hand is treason.

Nothing is wrong with your opinion or Sanders'. I try to avoid personality conflicts, and did not suggest you or him have no credence. I have NO expertise in such matters, and happily defer to anybody who does. That said, I've watched several of Gage's presentations and find them credible. As for esoteric points, I remain neutral.

I understand and agree that the Pentagon lawn belongs to the Pentagon, and that they conducted the investigation. However at Shanksville, as one would expect, the locals made it first, and were later run off by Pentagon teams. THAT is the most unusual circumstance. Yes, I'm well aware that the events of the day constituted a "terrorist attack", but would note that just because President Bush had it all figured out as to the guilty parties before the day was over, does not mean that the President's analysis of guilt was accurate.

Too bad about your friend's friend. It would be interesting to know all the details of the family and friends, but I'm very comfortable that, just as Coroner Miller noted (and subsequently retracted), there was no wrecked 757 with passengers in that field that day. Miller's eventual retraction was almost comical, something to the effect that the airplane and body parts were actually buried somehow, and they just could not find them until the Pentagon teams arrived. Yeppir.

As for the Hani maneuver and approach, I understand that my judgment of that might be as esoteric as yours and Sanders' of the architectural judgment. That is, as a non aviator you cannot appreciate the maneuver because you do not work in the field. I cannot appreciate the finer points of the WTC structure analysis because I do not work in that field.

by **Heretic76** » Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:13 pm

SanderO wrote:
Heretic76 wrote:Snow
I cannot make a qualified statement regarding building demolition, but I do rely upon A&E911 and others to help me make an informed decision in that regard.

Heretic,

You, like so many others (we all do this) rely on others who we believe to be experts and competent. I do, every time I get on a plane... assume that the pilot is properly qualified to fly the plane.

However, I would assert that AE911T is not what you think it is. Yes it has signatures of numerous architects, licensed and unlicensed and engineers, licensed and unlicensed. Many of the engineers have degrees or licenses in disciplines which have nothing to do with structure... such as electrical engineers... or aviation. So the actual number of qualified building professionals is much lower that the alleged number bandied about. And then of course MOST have no experience with high rise structures and so that it like a ophthalmologist's opinion about podiatry. But we don't have to dwell on this. What is more important is that very few (to none) of the petition signers (including Gage) have studied the structural details of the buildings in question with only a few exceptions.

AE911T is a marketing operation not a professional association of technical experts. AE911T has done NO research inside the organization or sponsored any. It simply assembled what they deem *research* which supports their thesis of explosive controlled demolition in the classic *cherry picking* of (flawed) observations and presents them in their various dog and pony shows and DVDs.

I served on the board of AE911T and recommended to Gage that AE911T assemble a group of their engineer petition signers to model the structure of the the buildings, do and FEA and a building performance study to see how they could be brought down or collapse. He flat out refused to do this... saying it was unnecessary as they had the nano thermite smoking gun evidence.

I can't argue with Rob Balsamo about aviation or avionics or judge his statements because I not competent to. Likewise you, and most other Truthers are not competent to evaluate the presentations of AE911T which by the way has nothing about building performance and is all about the signs of explosive controlled demolition.

You can fool some of the people all of the time
and all of the people some of the time
but you can not fool all of the people all of the time

You've been fooled

You might be right that I've been fooled by Gage. But during my life I have been fooled by the best of them. Gage might make some technically inaccurate statements, and maybe he does not conduct as much research or experiments as YOU might judge necessary, but for those of us who are not involved in construction, design or demolition, he seems to make a persuasive case that meet certain common sense requirements.

If you can, without being too technical, could you describe how he has erred?

by **Heretic76** » Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:16 pm

SnowCrash wrote:The fact that UA 175 had to be diverted by ATC from its course to avoid AA 11, is that not an eye-opener?

I think you mentioned this earlier and I failed to respond.

Could you expand on that statement, and as to why it is an eye-opener?

by **SnowCrash** » Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:34 pm

Heretic76 wrote:I understand and agree that the Pentagon lawn belongs to the Pentagon, and that they conducted the investigation. However at Shanksville, as one would expect, the locals made it first, and were later run off by Pentagon teams. THAT is the most unusual circumstance.

Please provide credible evidence for this claim. I doubt this happened, the FBI has jurisdiction over such crime scenes. And the Pentagon crime scene, too, was under the jurisdiction of the FBI.

Heretic76 wrote:Yes, I'm well aware that the events of the day constituted a "terrorist attack", but would note that just because President Bush had it all figured out as to the guilty parties before the day was over, does not mean that the President's analysis of guilt was accurate.

Well, since Bin Laden was involved, the USG claims were at least partially true. At the same time, they were concealing a whole lot.

Heretic76 wrote:Too bad about your friend's friend. It would be interesting to know all the details of the family and friends, but I'm very comfortable that, just as Coroner Miller noted (and subsequently retracted), there was no wrecked 757 with passengers in that field that day.

Well, I'm not. Let me blunt. Miller is a country hick who knew jack shit about plane crashes until 9/11

He had never been in charge of a case with more than two dead.

http://www.post-gazette.com/headlines/2 ... 1015p2.asp

Heretic76 wrote:Miller's eventual retraction was almost comical, something to the effect that the airplane and body parts were actually buried somehow, and they just could not find them until the Pentagon teams arrived. Yeppir.

Which Pentagon teams? The FBI was in charge of the scene, as far as I know. They used the Pennsylvania National Guard Armory as a temporary morgue, and what couldn't be identified there, went to the Armed Forces DNA Identification Laboratory in Rockville.

Heretic76 wrote:As for the Hani maneuver and approach, I understand that my judgment of that might be as esoteric as yours and Sanders' of the architectural judgment. That is, as a non aviator you cannot appreciate the maneuver because you do not work in the field.

Wrong, I peer reviewed the FDR study. I probably know more about several things avionics than you do. Look at what happens when you wallow in reverence for 'experts' like Wallace Miller. Never again.

Heretic76 wrote:I cannot appreciate the finer points of the WTC structure analysis because I do not work in that field.

Yes you can. Expert culture is a myth. It's all about how much effort you put in.

I'm not afraid to take on any expert in any field on any topic, if I know they're wrong.

by **SnowCrash** » Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:37 pm

Heretic76 wrote:
SnowCrash wrote:The fact that UA 175 had to be diverted by ATC from its course to avoid AA 11, is that not an eye-opener?

I think you mentioned this earlier and I failed to respond.

Could you expand on that statement, and as to why it is an eye-opener?

Do remote controlled drones talk to ATC operators and do they get diverted to avoid a possible collision?

I should think it's obvious why that has profound implications.

by **SnowCrash** » Tue Feb 07, 2012 10:45 pm

I have studied 9/11 for 8 years in the most insane detail. Very few people still impress me in this field. Some of them are on this forum.

You may be an expert in aviation, but I'm a 9/11 expert and even you got the NTSB/FBI jurisdiction issue wrong. See how easy it is?

Now, I have believe I've done my job here, explaining why I think the passport could be real. If it could be real, the falsification claim falls and a need for direct evidence of planting arises. (I believe it should be there to begin with, but okay..)

When it does, let me know and we'll have something new to talk about.

Cheers.

by **Childlike Empress** » Wed Feb 08, 2012 1:20 am

Hey gang, tach Oystein, interesting thread.

SnowCrash, if I may ask and I hope I didn't miss it - why did you stop working with AE911T?

by **SnowCrash** » Wed Feb 08, 2012 5:16 am

Childlike Empress wrote:SnowCrash, if I may ask and I hope I didn't miss it - why did you stop working with AE911T?

I simply stopped doing stuff, and eventually I noticed I no longer had access to the mailing list.

I remained in contact with Justin Keogh though, and now and then 9/11 truth leadership mailing lists and threads; some of them quite heated I might add.

If felt drawn towards the research in this forum and I had developed my own doubts about CD. (After all this time, I've become a bit fuzzy about the exact reasons, dates, people and circumstances)

However, doubts about CD does not equal total rejection of anything not sanctioned by the high priest of anti-woo. :wink:

As far as I'm concerned, this forum is the true "scientists & engineers for 9/11 truth".

I still harbor no ill will towards AE911Truth. Just a bit annoyed by things promoted which are premature, false, incorrect or incomplete.

by **SnowCrash** » Wed Feb 08, 2012 5:30 am

AE911Truth (Gage) did briefly endorse CIT, that kinda sucked, and Dwain Deets got involved, which was embarrassing, and then there was Chris Sarns, who probably meant well but promoted NoC + impact.

I suppose my position on those things is well known: I'm totally anti-no-plane-at-the-Pentagon claims. There is a cornucopia of evidence indicating plane crash at the Pentagon. I find it utterly unfathomable that people still think (or ever thought) there was no plane or no plane crash there.

I'm ashamed and embarrassed I ever doubted it myself.

What non-truthers love most is the Pentagon theories. They've heard about that 'missile' that hit the Pentagon. They love it. Exciting stuff for National Geographic right after that 11 PM Bigfoot special.

If I sound a bit bitter and jaded about that, it's probably because I am. Hell, I can tell Farmer is, too.

by **Heretic76** » Wed Feb 08, 2012 3:04 pm

Snow

I make no claims to being an expert on 911, but I'm well informed. I'm happy to acknowledge that you are more informed than I.

The story of Miller et al having arrived first, and then being run off by DoD teams and the FBI, his comments and subsequent retraction were all covered in various local media, including the Post-Gazette to which you linked. It has been years since I've read it, and I also heard a telephone interview with the man regarding his statements and retraction.

Who said OBL was involved? The USG, that's who. That would be the same entity that fabricated the story known as the Gulf Of Tonkin incident, and Iran-Contra and all those other stories. Point is that citing the statements of known liars as being substantive or factual is a fundamental error in logic. One should be most skeptical of the testimony of proven liars.

Mr. Miller INDEED was no expert on airplanes or airplane accidents. However, he was the legally standing coroner, and was neither blind nor deaf. It really boils down to which of his statements was truthful--the first or the second.

The maneuver supposedly flown by Hani was not about avionics, and I did not mean to impugn your knowledge of avionics or FDRs or anything else. That maneuver was about flying a strange and fast airplane in VFR conditions, by hand, NOT by autopilot. I'm not sure the point you're trying to make, but there is no way he could have done it, all things considered. And I am far and away not the only pilot to understand that.

As for the vectors for separation between 11 and 175, what phase of flight did that take place in? Wasn't that fairly close to BOS? Possibly before the "hijack?"

Reading your post above regarding 'no plane at Pentagon' position, I further refine it to "no 757 at Pentagon", which I'm sure you've gathered by now. I happen to believe, but my mind is open on it, that there was SOME SORT of airplane that struck there, but whatever it might have been, it clearly WAS NOT a 757.

The parking lot camera suggests something flew by, and the wreckage inside suggests that some sort of turbine powered craft crashed there, but it was no 757 for many reasons.

by **SanderO** » Wed Feb 08, 2012 5:29 pm

Heretic,

The US government on 9/11 was not the same one at the time of the JFK assassination, nor the GUlf of Tonkin, Iran Contra and so on. Some people have been in and out of government in *high places* for decades.. such as Rumsfeld and Cheney to name the obvious.

It doesn't seem outside the realm of possibility that *intel* was capable of projects without the knowledge (before or even after) of the government as a whole. In a sense our government has accepted the notion of secret operations and black ops and these sorts of projects have been carried out for more than half a century presumably as a more efficient means to accomplish what was deemed by *someone(s)* as legitimate foreign (and domestic?) policies objectives.

If a bunch of important powerful people wanted to the US to engage in a proxy war with the USSR, they could engage *intel* in a black op to bring this about... the so called false flag operation. Intel has engaged in assassination such as with Mosedeq, Allende, attempted Castro and Chavez and succeeded in supporting coups in countries around the world. These sorts of black ops are not acknowledged... rarely investigated by congressional over sight committees and cover stories blaming someone else for them are left to stand.

Virtually all of these actions are in support of US hegemony and control or resources, finance, energy reserves around the world. The US population wants to live its cushy consumerist wasteful lifestyle and turns a blind eye to the events around the world. In that context 9/11 seems to have provided enormous public support for a stepped up aggressive policy of US world domination. And that meant (excuse) that we had to remove all the pesky terrorist threats which, as per 9/11, could and would strike anywhere and at any time.

So the aggressive policy of world control and domination surfaced under the excuse of making the US population safe from *terrorism*. The gloves were off... anything goes. Nothing can stand in the way of national security... even losing the very rights that defined the country as a democracy.

Whose agenda? The US government?

by **Heretic76** » Wed Feb 08, 2012 9:22 pm

I could not agree more with you Sander.

As to the answer to your last 2 questions, we can only speculate. If you read Ike's Farewell Address, you will find that might have laid the predicate for everything you say above.

I think Ike saw the government as possibly hijacked by special interests even in 1961. Has the federal government been hijacked?

by **SanderO** » Wed Feb 08, 2012 10:57 pm

Following on, you have to agree that any interest which saw it could advance its agenda or profit from 9/11 or turn lemons into lemonade would do so. And the excuse would be to support national security... in the memory of those innocents who lost their lives (sentimentalism)... protect the *homeland* (interesting new lingo)... and of course to kick ass and show anyone who might think otherwise who was top cop on planet earth. All the aggressive sadists and racists came out of the woodwork and signed on to kill over in the ME. WMDs? Pure hooey. Iraq never was a threat to the USA *homeland*... nor is any country for that matter when one considers what that actually means. The only real threat was the madness of nuclear annihilation and that would only happen if there were a bunch of Dr Strangeloves on both sides of the standoff who simply wanted to end life on the planet. But aside from a few mad med there is no real threat to the USA and the USA is not the world's cop either. But we have done a damn good job of flooding it with weapons and that means conflicts and that means the USA can take sides and the killing goes on. And someone's making out and laughing all the way to the bank.

So it doesn't matter WHO did 9/11, the policies we saw enacted were going to come anyway.. 9/11 was just a neat little excuse and allowed it all to unfold rather quickly. Those who benefited from it were *gaming* everything they rolled out anyway... and didn't have to initiate 9/11. They just milked it for all it was worth. Could those interests who benefited planned and carried out 9/11? Why not... they are as capable as AQ and more so and certainly have more pull to arrange for a cover up. But that's speculation and there's no connect the dot proof of this.

We still can't agree on what actually happened ten years on.

The 9/11 Forum

A few questions lads

Re: A few questions lads

Re: A few questions lads

Re: A few questions lads

Re: A few questions lads

Re: A few questions lads

Re: A few questions lads

Re: A few questions lads

Re: A few questions lads

Re: A few questions lads

Re: A few questions lads

Re: A few questions lads

Re: A few questions lads

Re: A few questions lads

Re: A few questions lads

Re: A few questions lads

Who is online