Why don't Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth Fund Research?

I think it would be a fine thing if they did, but I don't think it's fair to label them a con because they don't.

You are the one that keeps using words like "con" and "crook". I certainty have not characterized them as such. AE911T seems to have the money. If building 7 is the smoking gun, then why are they not funding such an inexpensive research research project? Is a $40,000 billboard in Times Square or a speaking engagement in Australia really a more effective way of exposing a controlled demolition?

You seem to be saying that more studies would be redundant somehow, or that it's not AE911T's concern. Is that correct?

They are, however more effective they could be doing other things, doing a relatively good job of emphasizing that 9/11 isn't an issue we should be thinking about as old history. I also think thier current message, the whole 'Did you know a third building...?" thing, speaks toward the necessity of such awareness efforts, as it's a fact that to this very day those without at least some experience in the conspiracy-verse are very often completely unaware that there was even such a thing as 'building 7', let alone that its wholesale collapse was rather unorthodox/extremely difficult to explain.

Ya... that's a nice way of putting it. In reality his message is somewhat less vague than your rendition. He is actively promoting the conspiracy that building 7 collapsed due to explosives. Here's Richard Gage talking about the 'unorthodox collapse' during one of his awarenes campaigns.

"...have come together to create what we feel is a strong statement of awareness for the third skyscraper to collapse at near freefall acceleration, symmetrically, which is obviously with explosives on 9/11."

Content from External Source
Why are they not taking the opportunity to fund some inexpensive research to prove it? Do they need to sell more truther coffee and DVD's?
 
You've been extremely kind.
lol, we're up to extremes now. Wowsers. Got an example of my 'extreme kindness'?


Defender, supporter. Whatever. You're very clever at making semantic differences seem like something more.
It's not overly clever to understand the language I'm using as I'm using it. I do not support AE911T. I don't donate to them, I don't follow them, and I don't like some of the characters involved with them. I've never written them a letter saying 'I think you guys are great' or 'keep up the good work' or 'if you need a volunteer, I'm your man.' I am, in this moment, defending AE911T simply because this thread accuses them of being thieves, liars, charlatans and fiendish exploiters of grief. I'm of the opinion that's all rather hysterical exaggeration.

You are the one that keeps using words like "con" and "crook".
Just bringing the implication being bandied about out into the open.
I certainty have not characterized them as such.
No, you just implied the percentage of their budget spent on salaries/benefits was extreme. Others are getting a little more vindictive.
AE911T seems to have the money. If building 7 is the smoking gun, then why are they not funding such an inexpensive research research project?
As Mick said from his direct contact with a representative of the organization, they seem to suggest that when they think the gun is smoking, analyzing the consistency of the smoke isn't a priority for them.
Is a $40,000 billboard in Times Square or a speaking engagement in Australia really a more effective way of exposing a controlled demolition?
Given that what's almost certainly a large majority of people don't know about/have never seen the collapse of Building 7, I think that learning building 7 exists and witnessing the uncanny collapse of it would have far more potent a first impression than reading/seeing somewhere, without any substantial context, that thermite was found in a blind test of dust, and that those results are being contested (as they surely would).

You seem to be saying that more studies would be redundant somehow, or that it's not AE911T's concern. Is that correct?
I'm saying it would be great if they'd fund more research, and I might actually consider supporting them if they did, but that they don't isn't some nail in the coffin of their worth.




Ya... that's a nice way of putting it. In reality his message is somewhat less vague than your rendition. He is actively promoting the conspiracy that building 7 collapsed due to explosives. Here's Richard Gage talking about the 'unorthodox collapse' during one of his awarenes campaigns.
I don't disagree with him, I just can't reasonably espouse his level of certainty in the matter. Demolition was, since the event itself, my presumption until proven otherwise given the nature of the collapse and the evident similarities to demolition events on record. Given demolition was the only precedent on record for such a rapid collapse of such a large building, it seemed the reasonable place to start. The day of I wasn't alone in this sentiment. The collection of reporters, news anchors, and eye witnesses citing the similarity to a demolition is expansive until the narrative changed hours later, long before the investigation had begun.


Do they need to sell more truther coffee and DVD's?
Can never get enough coffee, so I hear. More of a tea guy, actually.
 
Last edited:
Yes, the coffee is a bit off topic. Let's regroup. Why are AE911 not funding research?

Here's a related question: Have they ever funded research? It's part of their mandate to do research, but have they ever spent a penny of their donations or income on research?



So if their mission is to research, then what research have they done?
 
And the thread rapidly descends into derisive one-liners. Adios!:rolleyes:
Such a moral champion Grieves.

The premise is simple - there is a disputed level of proof for thermite which can be resolved by simple fair and open testing which would prove the position they put so much of their lives into promoting; why don't they? Your attempts to excuse them of this are just plain odd.
 
The topic is why AE911 don't fund research. Nothing else.

If you want to talk about something else, then start a new thread.
 
Such a moral champion Grieves.
You bet.

The premise is simple - there is a disputed level of proof for thermite which can be resolved by simple fair and open testing which would prove the position they put so much of their lives into promoting; why don't they? Your attempts to excuse them of this are just plain odd.
Irony abounds. Again, I don't know why they don't, and think it would be an entirely decent thing for them to do. It's just not their responsibility, and it's unreasonable to claim their failure to do it somehow demonstrates a fraudulent intent in general.

[...]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You bet.

Irony abounds. Again, I don't know why they don't, and think it would be an entirely decent thing for them to do. It's just not their responsibility, and it's unreasonable to claim their failure to do it somehow demonstrates a fraudulent intent in general.

[...]

I'm sorry but as Mick pointed out in message #127 research is in their charter.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Yeah, spotted that Landru, but their charter isn't a contract to financially support any and all related research, nor does it make determining the whole truth about Building 7 their responsibility. Should they fund the study? Yes, I think so. I think less of them for not doing it actually, which is a small success on the part of this thread I suppose. That said, it's not my non-profit, and what they are managing to do isn't absent of value so far as I'm concerned. They're reminding people that there IS an argument at least, and if some get heavier in the pockets than they should as a result, that's unfortunate, but not a solid reason to dismiss or revile them as criminals.

I'd ask you to consider the second portion of the post you quoted Landru.
 
Topic is Why AE911 don't fund research. Off Topic material will be removed.
  • "Because NIST did a poor job" is not an answer, and OT
  • "Why don't you ask NIST why they don't ..." is not an answer, and OT
  • "I think there are double standards here", is OT
 
Yeah, spotted that Landru, but their charter isn't a contract to financially support any and all related research, nor does it make determining the whole truth about Building 7 their responsibility. Should they fund the study? Yes, I think so. I think less of them for not doing it actually, which is a small success on the part of this thread I suppose. That said, it's not my non-profit, and what they are managing to do isn't absent of value so far as I'm concerned. They're reminding people that there IS an argument at least, and if some get heavier in the pockets than they should as a result, that's unfortunate, but not a solid reason to dismiss or revile them as criminals.

I'd ask you to consider the second portion of the post you quoted Landru.

Have they funded any research at all?
 
Don't know. Don't follow them. As a fleetingly interesting portion of this conversation has rapidly evaporated into the ether before I could so much as get the 'reply' feature to capture it all, I'm going to start a new thread. Hope to see you there.
 
Greetings. In my own personal journey to discover what happened to the towers I became involved in the truth movement back in the end of 2009. I am a licensed NYC architect and met Gage and other truthers at the We Demand Transparency conference in NYC just around Sept 11 2009. I offered to help Gage as I had signed their petition asking for further investigation. At the time I had not looked very closely at the issues. The truther presentations are compelling at first glance and will put doubts about the official story in the minds of many people... especially those without a scientific or engineering background.

Once on board AE911T I offered all sorts of suggestions to improve their operations. I did not get involved in the substance of their claims at the time assuming they were vetted or wouldn't be promoted so affirmatively. I was offered a position on their board rather quickly which I declined at first. Once on the board I began to suggest the group engage in research.. exploit the expertise of the architects and engineers who signed their petition and get an FEA underway and do some building performance studies and modeling of collapse scenarios. Gage was very strong in his refusal do undertake any of this. In fact, early in 2010 they were going to "celebrate" their fact that they had reached 1,000 professionals who signed their petition. I was instrumental in planning this event and suggested again that they convene a symposium of "their" professionals to discuss the structural issues and how to move forward with technical research. I also suggested that they consider dropping the term "controlled demolition" and perhaps use "engineered destruction". All this sort of independence did not play well with volunteers and several board members. They wanted me to sign on to a statement that I endorse all their "pillars of truth" and that I accept the presence of nano thermite in the dust as a tell tale sign of CD. I refused. I was expelled from the board and the organization for no cause other than I would not "fall in line" on several of their issues and wanted to see them do credible research. Shortly after I was expelled, Cole and Ryan produced some back yard research and published them as YouTubes.

After leaving AE911T I engaged in my own study, discovered the work at the 911 Free Forums and moved away from accepting the claims of AE911T which increasingly looked to me like unfounded assumptions, unsupported by real scientific research. A number of papers were published by truthers. As far as I know none have stood the test of scrutiny by other scientists and engineer. The so called peer review process failed to discover obvious flaws in the papers.

Over time it has become increasingly clear that there will be or can not be a proof of what happened at the WTC. There can only be models built with assumptions because we are data starved. NIST's models appear to have flaws, and AE911T doesn't even have a model.

What AE911T does is market the idea of controlled demolition couched behind a quasi reasonable claim for have further investigation. It appears that their real agenda is self preservation so that Gage can have a job and feel important. AE911T is a PR organization and like all marketing it employs smoke and mirrors and all manner of deception to confuse the consumers.

They are not interested in further research because, I believe, it might reveal fatal flaws in their arguments. When Dr. Millette's study failed to confirm the Harrit et al work it was discredited in all sorts of ways by AE911T and it's followers in the truth movement.

Gage has erected for himself a platform of false credibility to market his fantasy about controlled demolition. He may have actually believed this all when he got in led there by David Griffin who is a theologian and has no technical expertise. Griffin simply quote mined the flawed "research" of Steven Jones and Jim Hoffman. It's hard to know if these truth leaders still believe their pitch which has been debunked very thoroughly over the years.

Is there debate about facts? I think not. But calling for an investigation is their way of avoiding the established facts. Avoiding doing research is their way of avoiding admitting once and for all the facts and being forced to abandon their unfounded claims.
 
Last edited:
Greetings. In my own personal journey to discover what happened to the towers I became involved in the truth movement back in the end of 2009. I am a licensed NYC architect and met Gage and other truthers at the We Demand Transparency conference in NYC just around Sept 11 2009. I offered to help Gage as I had signed their petition asking for further investigation. At the time I had not looked very closely at the issues. The truther presentations are compelling at first glance and will put doubts about the official story in the minds of many people... especially those without a scientific or engineering background.

Once on board AE911T I offered all sorts of suggestions to improve their operations. I did not get involved in the substance of their claims at the time assuming they were vetted or wouldn't be promoted so affirmatively. I was offered a position on their board rather quickly which I declined at first. Once on the board I began to suggest the group engage in research.. exploit the expertise of the architect's and engineers who signed their petition and get an FEA underway and do some building performance studies and modeling of collapse scenarios. Gage was very strong in his refusal do undertake any of this. In fact, early in 2010 they were going to "celebrate" their fact that they had reach 1,000 professionals who signed their petition. I was instrumental at in planning this event and suggested again that they convene a symposium of "their" professionals to discuss the structural issues and how to move forward with technical research. I also suggested that they consider dropping the term "controlled demolition" and perhaps use "engineered destruction". All this sort of independence did not play well with volunteers and several board members. They wanted me to sign on to a statement that I endorse all their "pillars of truth" and that I accept the presence of nano thermite in the dust as a tell tale sign of CD. I refused. I was expelled from the board and the organization for no cause other than I would not "fall in line" on several of their issues and wanted to see them do credible research. Shortly after I was expelled, Cole and Ryan produced some back yard research and published them as YouTubes.

After leaving AE911T I engaged in my own study, discovered the work at the 911 Free Forums and moved away from accepting the claims of AE911T which increasingly looked to me like unfounded assumptions, unsupported by real scientific research. A n umber of papers were published by truthers. As far as I know none have stood the test of scrutiny by other scientists and engineer. The so called peer review process failed to discover obvious flaws in the papers.

Over time it has become increasingly clear that there will be or can not be a proof of what happened at the WTC. There can only be models built with assumptions because we are data starved. NIST's models appear to have flaws, and AE911T doesn't even have a model.

What AE911T is market the idea of controlled demolition couched behind a quasi reasonable claim for have further investigation. It appears that their real agenda is self preservation so that Gage can have a job and feel important. AE911T is a PR organization and like all marketing it employs smoke and mirrors and all manner of deception to confuse the consumers.

They are not interested in further research because, I believe, it might reveal fatal flaws in their arguments. When Dr. Millette study failed to confirm the Harrit et al work it was discredited in all sorts of ways by AE911T and it's followers in the truth movement.

Gage as erected for himself a platform of false credibility to market his fantasy about controlled demolition. He may have actually believed this all when he got in led their by David Griffin who is a theologian and has no technical expertise. Griffin simply quote mined the flawed "research" of Steven Jones and Jim Hoffman. It's hard to know if these truth leaders still believe their pitch which has been debunked very thoroughly over the years.

Is there debate about facts? I think not. But calling for an investigation is their way of avoiding the established facts. Avoiding doing research is their way of avoiding admitting once and for all the facts and being forced to abandon their unfounded claims.
Welcome . . . it is fascinating that you were once on the AE911 Board . . . could you specify the dates you served?
 
Jeffrey . . . I am sure there are several questions people would like to ask you . . .

1) In your opinion, is there any evidence the official story is inaccurate in any significant way? And if so . . . Is there some easy low hanging fruit for research that AE911 could have sponsored and paid for?

2) I personally feel the NIST Report and 911 Commission Report are less than perfect . . . I am particularly troubled by the withholding of the data used to validate the collapse simulations . . . do you have any thoughts on the issue? Did AE911 ever discuss testing their own simulations?
 
Last edited:
I don't recall the specific dates. I because "active" as a volunteer in mid September 2009 and was expelled in the first or second week of February. In 2010 I attended many truth events tapering off in 2011 as there was nothing new but simply the same presentations. Graham MacQueen presented his work about evidence of foreknowledge in New Haven based on FDNY reports of witnesses hearing explosions. MacQueen did no consider that many things can and did explode in those building which were burning. I attempted to explain this and was met with the usual denial. That was the last event I attended and began discussing the matter online.

I find NIST's explanations lacking to say the least. I don't buy their sagging truss bit and I don't actually accept that the initiation of the collapse was a floor 13 caused by a girder walk off at column 79. I've come to realize that NIST is presenting models more than after accident reports which is what most consider them to be. I think the engineering and design/planning issues played a key role and this was either down played, ignored or side stepped. I don't which and I don't know why. I don't subscribe to CD theories. I see no evidence of CD whatsoever.
 
I don't recall the specific dates. I because "active" as a volunteer in mid September 2009 and was expelled in the first or second week of February. In 2010 I attended many truth events tapering off in 2011 as there was nothing new but simply the same presentations. Graham MacQueen presented his work about evidence of foreknowledge in New Haven based on FDNY reports of witnesses hearing explosions. MacQueen did no consider that many things can and did explode in those building which were burning. I attempted to explain this and was met with the usual denial. That was the last event I attended and began discussing the matter online.

I find NIST's explanations lacking to say the least. I don't buy their sagging truss bit and I don't actually accept that the initiation of the collapse was a floor 13 caused by a girder walk off at column 79. I've come to realize that NIST is presenting models more than after accident reports which is what most consider them to be. I think the engineering and design/planning issues played a key role and this was either down played, ignored or side stepped. I don't which and I don't know why. I don't subscribe to CD theories. I see no evidence of CD whatsoever.
Where could AE911 been most effective in resolving outstanding issues with the NIST investigation if they had concentrated their attention and funds?
 
AE911T when I was up close did not seem to want to discover what happened. They were already convinced that the buildings were taken down by CD. NT was smoking gun evidence to them. One would think the investigation would have been to have a re do and come up with a more plausible official explanation for the collapses. (I'd like that) But I assume they expect the investigation would discover the CD explanation as the most plausible... I'd don't think they really believe it. My sense is that AE and Gage kinda got duped and made a big public presence and began to make some decent cash.... and couldn't back down... too embarrassing. They wouldn't say this, but how could it not be embarrassing? Instead they keep on pressing their PR campaign which will go nowhere but produce a revenue stream. Being debunked matters little to them because all they do is claim the debunkers are paid government shills essentially extensions of the inside job. They will not concede a fact, just discredit their critics and repeat their nonsense claims.

One of the claims which was easy to fact check was the distance from the towers that heavy steel sections were found. AE911T claimed it was 600 feet. Easy to fact check with a scaled map of the site and surrounding buildings. This was one of the first things I looked into. Their claim was off by a very wide margin as the distance from the west face of 1wtc was 440 feet to the barrel vault of the World Financial Center. No reason to make such a huge mistake. And when I pointed this error out, rather than correct their statement, they simply ignored my study.

Very telling about their concern of accuracy and the "truth".
 

Attachments

  • wtc debris + photo 4.pdf
    2.2 MB · Views: 817
One would think the investigation would have been to have a re do and come up with a more plausible official explanation for the collapses. (I'd like that) But I assume they expect the investigation would discover the CD explanation as the most plausible... I'd don't think they really believe it. My sense is that AE and Gage kinda got duped and made a big public presence and began to make some decent cash.... and couldn't back down... too embarrassing. They wouldn't say this, but how could it not be embarrassing? Instead they keep on pressing their PR campaign which will go nowhere but produce a revenue stream.
.

Do you think their (AE911) inability to accept they were wrong has taken away an effective advocate to get to the real issues of what possibly did happen?
 
Jeffrey, seems you are who you say you are . . . hope you don 't mind me posting this about your participation in AE911 . . .


One fellow who I spoke to took two pages of notes as I responded to his questions. Volunteer Jeffrey Orling, architect, commented on how little the typical architect must know about 9/11 and all the odd circumstances surrounding it.

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-s...nals-see-and-hear-the-explosive-evidence.html

Content from External Source
 
I do, but I don't think the average person bothers with the details, and simply assumes that AE's statemets are factual... a sort of appeal to authority... 2,000 licensed professionals can't be wrong basis for not looking into the claim. I don't think that those 2,000 professionals have looked closely either for that matter. Who could dispute the fact the the distance steel was found was off by 150' or 33%! No one except me (as far as I know) checked this statement or told AE to correct it. To me this says that most simply take the 600 foot claim at fact. Lazy... and why would AE willfully lie about something like this? I don't know that that are actually engaged in deception as much as stenography... repeating something that someone else said... without fact checking.

A while back I came across a video where some "researcher" made the claim and there was some graphic on the screen. It was very crudely done and I believe used the center of the tower which would add 100' feet to the "distance found". But clearly a slight of hand because it was the FACADE steel not any of the core steel and the core steel would not all be in dead center in any case. My hunch is that some one who put together the AE bullet points culled this statement from that video and just added it to their WOW statements in support of CD. It sure sounded compelling.

They also make the claim about symmetry of the collapse as a tell tale sign of CD because a building could not possibly collapse as they did... somewhat organized about the center of mass... without explosives. This is of course nonsense and unsupportable as is the claim that the top of 2wtc could fall over and outside the footprint. This shows a profound misunderstanding of the physics. But it makes for good shock and awe marketing.
 
I do, but I don't think the average person bothers with the details, and simply assumes that AE's statemets are factual... a sort of appeal to authority... 2,000 licensed professionals can't be wrong basis for not looking into the claim. I don't think that those 2,000 professionals have looked closely either for that matter. Who could dispute the fact the the distance steel was found was off by 150' or 33%! No one except me (as far as I know) checked this statement or told AE to correct it. To me this says that most simply take the 600 foot claim at fact. Lazy... and why would AE willfully lie about something like this? I don't know that that are actually engaged in deception as much as stenography... repeating something that someone else said... without fact checking.

A while back I came across a video where some "researcher" made the claim and there was some graphic on the screen. It was very crudely done and I believe used the center of the tower which would add 100' feet to the "distance found". But clearly a slight of hand because it was the FACADE steel not any of the core steel and the core steel would not all be in dead center in any case. My hunch is that some one who put together the AE bullet points culled this statement from that video and just added it to their WOW statements in support of CD. It sure sounded compelling.

They also make the claim about symmetry of the collapse as a tell tale sign of CD because a building could not possibly collapse as they did... somewhat organized about the center of mass... without explosives. This is of course nonsense and unsupportable as is the claim that the top of 2wtc could fall over and outside the footprint. This shows a profound misunderstanding of the physics. But it makes for good shock and awe marketing.
You seem to feel if the other architects and engineers took the time to dig into the claims made by AE911 they would remove their endorsement? If so . . . do you think AE911 serves any useful purpose? Do we need a new review of the NIST findings by a qualified 3rd party?
 
Jeffrey, seems you are who you say you are . . . hope you don 't mind me posting this about your participation in AE911 . . .


One fellow who I spoke to took two pages of notes as I responded to his questions. Volunteer Jeffrey Orling, architect, commented on how little the typical architect must know about 9/11 and all the odd circumstances surrounding it.

http://www.ae911truth.org/en/news-s...nals-see-and-hear-the-explosive-evidence.html

Content from External Source

This photo was taken at the Virgina AIA convention in fall 2009 just weeks after I became an AE911T volunteer before I was elevated to a board member. The group had decided to set up a booth at the convention and needed members to staff it. Since I was an architect I volunteered and saw it as an opportunity to meet other members and see the group in action and how the public responded to their presentations (video and chats with people manning the booth). At the time I was pretty much in the thrall of the group... I shared a suite with Jon Cole and had dinner with David Slezinger (sp?). The booth was manned by only two professional... me and Jon Cole and the rest were passionate volunteers with non building or engineering backgrounds (these types are the vast majority of AE volunteers and supporters).

The presentations were not well received. Only 4 or 5 people at the convention actually signed the petition if that many as I recall. I drove to VA from NY and none of my expenses were reimbursed.

But yes... very few architects seem to have bothered to get involved in the details of 9/11 and most seem to accept the broad outlines of the official explanation... mechanical damage plus unfought fires weaken steel and can lead to a total building collapse.
 
Jeffrey, . . . do you think AE911 serves any useful purpose? Do we need a new review of the NIST findings by a qualified 3rd party?
 
You seem to feel if the other architects and engineers took the time to dig into the claims made by AE911 they would remove their endorsement? If so . . . do you think AE911 serves any useful purpose? Do we need a new review of the NIST findings by a qualified 3rd party?

I think many WOULD remove their endorsement. I did. I don't like deception or misrepresentation in my name. I don't think anyone does.

Ironically I would like to see some other models of the collapse investigated. I have my own for 7wtc and for the twin towers. But these are developed by a individual with limited resources and skills at such things.

The problem is that AE911T relies on false claims, makes many mistakes in their bullet points and have already reached a CD conclusion. Their claim is presumably to find that there was CD...

They would have more credibility if they pointed to specific technical problems in the official reports which rise to the level of meriting a new investigation. I think there are several important errors in the NIST reports but I don't see that the basic assertion of the cause is unreasonable... ie heat can destroy a steel framed building. And without sensors, transducers and lot's of data it's impossible to know exactly how it happened... it's way too complex. NIST proposed models. (I personally don't think they are very good). I am just one architect. My opinion does not carry much weight in the scheme of things.
 
Jeffrey, . . . do you think AE911 serves any useful purpose? Do we need a new review of the NIST findings by a qualified 3rd party?

At this point not really. I would like to see NIST issue some report on their methods and what they are showing and what they are not. People seem to think they are describing precisely what happened. They are not. I would also like to see some discussion about what role the actual design played in the collapses. That is not all tall buildings are the same and would perform the same under the 9/11 stresses. That is to say... would a concrete cored building totally collapse from unfought fires? Would any tall steel building collapse from unfought fires? What would be the difference? Are there engineering lessons to learn from these collapses ... aside from more robust fire suppression strategies?

And so on.
 
Thanks Jeffrey for your input here on Metabunk . . . at some time in the future (when you feel comfortable) would love to hear about your simulations . . . it must have taken substantial courage to have challenged the people at AE911 after the considerable participation you experienced . . .
 
Thanks Jeffrey for your input here on Metabunk . . . at some time in the future would love to hear about your simulations . . . it must have taken substantial courage to have challenged the people at AE911 after the considerable participation you experienced . . .

I was naive enough to think that they were interested in actually figuring out what happened to those buildings and toward that end encourage open debate and discussion. I found out in short order and then the tables quickly turned on me. Apparently it was verboten to find fault in the basic arguments and statements in the Blueprint for Truth and their Pillars of Truth bullet points. It was clearly a you are with us or your are against us (siege) mentality. I was surprised at how intense they were about getting rid of and discrediting me which included calling me a paid agent of the government, an infiltrator as Sunstein had mentioned in some paper, CIA, dis info agent and so on. It was all very laughable.. but they were deadly serious. And one could not reason with them because their positions were irrational and their ethics completely compromised. And this included Griffin who was a theologian and one would assume understood ethical practice and behavior. He wandered in and really stepped in deep doo... and was caught doing what he should not have... characterizing me as a spy and dis info agent when he did not know or had ever spoken or corresponded with me. (the great researcher David Ray Griffin!).
 
Jeffrey, do you think AE911 would ever fund rational, verifiable research?

No I don't. They will publish truther research as "fact"... but they are a marketing operation who sole purpose is to use doubt (they create) about 9/11 to raise money to continue their operations... which is Gage's baby and he'd will never give it up to anyone.
 
I would like to add that I am not sure whether Gage believes his prattle or not. I do think he realizes that it would be too embarrassing to change his key positions... and there is a sufficiently large truther community to support his "work" and who consider him the next best thing to sliced bread. They are his enablers and funders and many of them have legitimate gripes with official policy over the years. I certainly do. But that is not a basis to support fantasy. Nor is it a smart strategy to change the policies we don't like.
 
Jeffrey, would it be possible at some time for you to make a laundry list of your questions about the 911 events . . . where they can be addressed one by one . . . it is probably not appropriate in this particular Thread but could be directed toward the best Thread or start a new Thread for that purpose?
 
I was naive enough to think that they were interested in actually figuring out what happened to those buildings and toward that end encourage open debate and discussion. I found out in short order and then the tables quickly turned on me. Apparently it was verboten to find fault in the basic arguments and statements in the Blueprint for Truth and their Pillars of Truth bullet points. It was clearly a you are with us or your are against us (siege) mentality. I was surprised at how intense they were about getting rid of and discrediting me which included calling me a paid agent of the government, an infiltrator as Sunstein had mentioned in some paper, CIA, dis info agent and so on. It was all very laughable.. but they were deadly serious. And one could not reason with them because their positions were irrational and their ethics completely compromised. And this included Griffin who was a theologian and one would assume understood ethical practice and behavior. He wandered in and really stepped in deep doo... and was caught doing what he should not have... characterizing me as a spy and dis info agent when he did not know or had ever spoken or corresponded with me. (the great researcher David Ray Griffin!).
Wow, I've just read through all your comments. Thank you for so eloquently sharing your experiences with AE911Truth, really helps us outsiders to understand why they behave the way they do.
I'd also encourage you to start a thread which details your own efforts at modelling the collapses. I think many would be interested in your work.
 
Once on the board I began to suggest the group engage in research.. exploit the expertise of the architect's and engineers who signed their petition and get an FEA underway and do some building performance studies and modeling of collapse scenarios. Gage was very strong in his refusal do undertake any of this.

Could you share Gage's reasons for refusing to undertake or fund research? What did he say exactly?
 
Could you share Gage's reasons for refusing to undertake or fund research? What did he say exactly?

As I recall the discussion never got to funding. I had suggested we get the professional signers to do the research pro bono. He didn't like the idea? I don't why and he didn't say. Perhaps he feared that research would undermine their talking points and might lead to defections? I don't know. I believe one other person agreed with my idea. He left AE911T.
 
As I recall the discussion never got to funding. I had suggested we get the professional signers to do the research pro bono. He didn't like the idea? I don't why and he didn't say. Perhaps he feared that research would undermine their talking points and might lead to defections? I don't know. I believe one other person agreed with my idea. He left AE911T.
Ironic is his decision, I feel, and has resulted in marginalizing AE911 as a credible organization . . . a more honest and courageous strategy to go where the evidence took them may have resulted in a change in history and a larger, more robust and credible organization . . .
 
Odd that he'd refuse without giving an explanation, and also that nobody would question the decision.

If he indeed refused pro bono research, then it's no wonder they're not funded it either.
Gage runs AE like his personal biz. He makes and signs off on all decisions. He is a tyrant of sorts, or svengali... people around him defer and won't challenge him. He won't step aside or relinquish any of his power and control. To me it looks more like a cult... Jim Jones comes to mind... or scientology. The people in it can't see it... and the leaders don't care.
 
Gage runs AE like his personal biz. He makes and signs off on all decisions. He is a tyrant of sorts, or svengali... people around him defer and won't challenge him. He won't step aside or relinquish any of his power and control. To me it looks more like a cult... Jim Jones comes to mind... or scientology. The people in it can't see it... and the leaders don't care.
People invest much psychological energy into organizations and bureaucracies . . . they take on a life of their own . . . like the demanding Venus Fly Trap in the Little Shop Of Horrors . . . add to this their personal motives and economic survival . . . http://m.imdb.com/title/tt0091419/

I think even you felt some of it yourself . . . when you made your decision to leave the organizations . . . You probably experienced some reluctance and second thoughts, at least at first . . . the first impulse is to try to change the errors in the organization . . . not to disband it . . .
 
Last edited:
People invest much psychological energy into organizations and bureaucracies . . . they take on a life of their own . . . like the demanding Venus Fly Trap in the Little Shop Of Horrors . . . add to this their personal motives and economic survival . . . http://m.imdb.com/title/tt0091419/

I think even you felt some of it yourself . . . when you made your decision to leave the organizations . . . You probably experienced some reluctance and second thoughts, at least at first . . . the first impulse is to try to change the errors in the organization . . . not to disband it . . .

I think it's natural for people to not want to admit they've made an error. I got involved with the group because I believed that they were on to something and honest ethical brokers interested in the truth. They turned out not to be this and once I realized it I wanted to be free of them. I did not go on a mission to "expose their BS" but I do when appropriate note how I see what they (Gage as leader and the bucks stops there) do, say, write and so forth. Many people will consider them to be ethical, honest and scientific about 9/11. This is a presumption for public groups with non profit status who claim to act in the public's interest.

Unfortunately Gage has gone down the rabbit hole and can't get out and may not want to. Or would that be quick sand?
 
Back
Top