IPB




POSTS MADE TO THIS FORUM ARE THE SOLE RESPONSIBILITY OF THE AUTHOR AND DO NOT NECESSARILY REFLECT THE VIEWS OF PILOTS FOR 911 TRUTH
FOR OFFICIAL PILOTS FOR 9/11 TRUTH STATEMENTS AND ANALYSIS, PLEASE VISIT PILOTSFOR911TRUTH.ORG

WELCOME - PLEASE REGISTER OR LOG IN FOR FULL FORUM ACCESS ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
Gage And Ryan Speaking At Farrakhan/nation Of Islam Conference This Weekend, causing discord among the ranks within AE

A. Syed
post Feb 22 2012, 02:24 AM
Post #1





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 124
Joined: 17-May 08
Member No.: 3,358



This weekend, Gage and Ryan will be speaking to what is almost certainly the largest live audience they've ever spoken for. There should be roughly 3,000 people in attendance and about 20,000 watching on live stream. Many of these thousands are non-truthers, so this will definitely be a large audience.

http://www.finalcall.com/artman/publish/Na...icle_8611.shtml

QUOTE
Richard Gage, founder of Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth told The Final Call he is looking forward to presenting the fact regarding 9/11 to those gathered.

“We’re excited to bring this information to a group of people who have already been primed for it by in this case the Minister,” said Mr. Gage. “He’s taken some very courageous stands for 9/11 truth and so we’re honored to come and speak to what I understand may be up to three thousand people at one time, which is about five times larger than any group of people we’ve ever spoken to. So we’re delighted that the information will get out all at once to that many people and live streaming as well to many times that many people.”


Despite the huge audience who will hear the message of evidence for controlled demolition, some people who work with Richard are upset enough with him to resign from the organization in protest. Now, to be fair to the upset ones: Farrakhan is seen by some as a man who uses divisive rhetoric. (A friend speculated to me in all seriousness that the reason he believes "they" haven't killed Farrakhan is because he's the perfect polarizing figure, far more so than the unifying nature of Malcolm X's character.)

In particular, Farrakhan blurs the line between responsible criticism of Israel/Zionism and ranting on about "the Satanic Jews" this and that.

So you can imagine how this has the self-anointed credibility cops' panties in a twist!

The former head of AE's verification team, Brian Romanoff (a.k.a. Nor Cal Truth @ 911blogger) has publicly denounced Richard and has made public his resignation from AE:

QUOTE
Richard and team are not sure they want to publicize the fact that they are going to be speaking at a Nation of Islam event a day before Louis FarraCON and a day after the discussion: “BUSINESS WARFARE: SECRET RELATIONSHIPS BETWEEN BLACKS & JEWS”

http://www.noi.org/sd2012/schedule.shtml

Richard wants to think this is the event that will catapault the new investigation. I have not heard anything more ridiculous and contrary to the obvious, and yes I told him exactly that many times before leaving.

Who is FarraCON:

Those "Satanic Jews have taken over BET..."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4K75EPrtBz4

"Jews manage black... artists." Jews own media, blacks only succeed with Jew help.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OiQG23S2cZ4...feature=related

Whites "don't deserve any mercy....no sympathy!" "We and white people are mortal enemies"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YSfZYqCOih8...feature=related

Remember it was NOI members that killed Malcolm X after Louis said Malcolm was "worthy of death":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=Ef...ature=endscreen

Louis FarraCON prasied the death of Malcolm X and defended the actions of NOI, "I'll kill ya":
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HFwinVw4wQ

(Malcolms daughter later tried to have Louis killed for his direct involvment in her father's killing)
http://books.google.com/books?id=Oj0DAAAAM...onepage&q...

After watching too many films of this guy, I feel like I was just at a Hitler rally.

Sorry Richard and my former teammembers @ ae911truth.org - but this is so stupid and irresponsible of you.


Romanoff's post was the first public posting about this event and the subsequent fallout by a truther, but I heard through the grapevine about it prior to anything being made public about it (Screw Lucy covered it prior to Romanoff's comment). I should probably leave it up to the other individuals who resigned to name themselves, though I've been made aware of who they are. Let's put it this way: at least two very well known members of the CD wing of the movement have left AE over this, resulting in an unprecedented schism between Richard/Kevin and other known demolitions advocates.

My own thoughts:

Usually when Richard gives his Blueprint lecture, it's in a college auditorium with maybe 150-200 people, 300 at most. In many vids I've seen of these, when Richard asks for the show of hands at the beginning, a good majority of the audience are already among the converted. So while Gage's speaking circuit might be a good morale booster for the troops, the audience he is reaching is limited. With the NOI conference he'll reach a brand new audience. Gage loves to recall how he was listening on the radio to a Griffin speech in the car, and he had to pull off the road, upon hearing DRG speak of the CD evidence. He says he felt like he was "hit by a two-by-four."

Imagine how many brand new people will hear this evidence and will feel like they've been hit by a two-by-four. Let's face it folks, it's no secret that the 9/11 truth movement's vitality has been hanging by a thread; we need some new fire, blood, troops, news- and blog sites on our side.

The 911blogger user "Simple Truths" posted what I felt was an excellent and sobering comment alluding to Nelson Mandela, in response to the outcry by the cred cops surrounding Richard:
QUOTE
Nelson Mandela went to speak to white racists ...
... and members of his African National Congress party were shocked that he was going to go into the heartland of white supremacy in a racist enclave. They asked him not to. They decried him. But Mandela quietly insisted even though his followers thought he would be tainted by talking at a white racist venue in Oranje - seen to be fraternising and entertaining 'the evil enemy'.

Mandela was smeared by some, Yes, I'm sure someone asked (even rhetorically): Do we need to 'babysit Mandela'?

But Mandela went to Oranje. He stood up and spoke, even though white racists had spoken on racial purity there the day before.

Mandela sat down and had a cup of tea with the wife of the architect of apartheid, Verwoerd.

Mandela spoke with quiet, fact-based rationality to a bunch of white racists.

Perhaps his instincts led him to do this. Perhaps Mandela changed two or three hearts that day. Perhaps Mandela helped avoid the bloodbath everyone predicted for South Africa?

A lot of ugly Islamophobia and anti-Semitism has emerged from USA over the last decade. (Remembers Arabs are Semitic people so the word anti-semitic applies to the Muslim situation too).

Perhaps Gage has a deeper instinct to reach out in rationality and fact-based discussion to this NOI group?


By far the best comment I've seen at that infiltrated site in a long time, and I definitely am not impressed by the counter-argument in response.

So what do other people in the truth community think about this?

This post has been edited by A. Syed: Feb 22 2012, 03:58 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tamborine man
post Feb 22 2012, 08:58 AM
Post #2





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 909
Joined: 1-July 07
From: Australia
Member No.: 1,315



I know virtually nothing about Farrakhan, but judging from this video below

i can see no problems for Gage and Ryan using the same venue.

It seems to me that Nor Cal 'Truth' could be amongst the people who were

responsible for the mass banning of all enlightened people from blogger, so

i wouldn't waste any time at all on this bloke!

(It appear as if he's rather cosy with that weird 'snowcrash' fella, who behaves

in a way that strongly suggest he's in the employ of the Cass Sunstein crowd)!





Cheers

This post has been edited by Tamborine man: Feb 22 2012, 09:06 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Feb 22 2012, 11:36 AM
Post #3



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



I'm not really up to scratch on Farrakhan, although the video Tamborine Man linked to still has me smiling each time I see it.

I think you have to first define for yourself what "extreme" actually is in the whole scheme of things. Is this guy any more "extreme" than the culprits of 9/11? Isn't Richard Gage on a platform claiming that the towers were brought down by controlled demolition by somebody other than Muslims? Why not speak to that audience? Isn't the stance being taken by some racist in itself?

Wasn't 9/11 the launching pad for aggressive wars which have lead to the deaths and displacement of millions of Muslims? Isn't Farrakhan saying in public about one "race" what the self imposed leaders of said "race" are showing by deed?

Arafat was denounced as a terrorist when Israel were treating the Palestinians far worse than the blacks in South Africa.

It's all PR bullshit.

My opinion? The Sunstein brownshirts at 911blogger are actually licking their lips at this.

I am at square one with Gage and DRG since their illogical and weak stances on CIT/NOC and Pilotsfor911Truth but whether this possible audience should be neglected? No way.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Feb 22 2012, 04:42 PM
Post #4





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,920
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



I think the poster SanderO is one of those who resigned from AE.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
A. Syed
post Feb 22 2012, 07:18 PM
Post #5





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 124
Joined: 17-May 08
Member No.: 3,358



No, SanderO was kicked off a long time ago by the board after they suspected him of bad motives --- he rose all the way to the Board of Directors at AE, then started suggesting Richard drop controlled demolition! rolleyes.gif

I'm talking about really major figures within CD promotion.

This post has been edited by A. Syed: Feb 24 2012, 08:40 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Feb 22 2012, 10:44 PM
Post #6



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



On a lighter note, another famous Muslim on being asked if he would like to be the first black president.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Tamborine man
post Feb 23 2012, 12:10 AM
Post #7





Group: Active Forum Pilot
Posts: 909
Joined: 1-July 07
From: Australia
Member No.: 1,315



Never saw that interview before, so thanks for that one OSS.

What an amazing insight the dear Ali had in those days.

Wonder what words of pure and simple wisdom he could have

spoken of today .......if only ....alas!!


Cheers
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mrmitosis
post Feb 23 2012, 12:24 AM
Post #8





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 228
Joined: 11-February 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 4,909



QUOTE (A. Syed @ Feb 22 2012, 06:18 PM) *
No, SanderO (name redacted by admin paranoia) was kicked off a long time ago by the board after they suspected him of bad motives --- he rose all the way to the Board of Directors at AE, then started suggesting Richard drop controlled demolition! rolleyes.gif

I'm talking about really major figures within CD promotion.


Anyone with a mouth can accuse people of "bad motives". And anyone in charge of an organisation can use their leveraged position to blacklist members that don't share a common perspective on a particular issue.

Doesn't make it right.

Did you ask SanderO for permission to use his real name?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
A. Syed
post Feb 23 2012, 05:53 AM
Post #9





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 124
Joined: 17-May 08
Member No.: 3,358



QUOTE (mrmitosis @ Feb 22 2012, 11:24 PM) *
Did you ask SanderO for permission to use his real name?


I feel fairly certain he has signed off certain posts on here using it, and it's well known within the movement. If he has a problem with it I can always edit (I'm sure he's reading this thread).
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mrmitosis
post Feb 23 2012, 07:01 AM
Post #10





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 228
Joined: 11-February 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 4,909



QUOTE (A. Syed @ Feb 23 2012, 04:53 AM) *
I feel fairly certain he has signed off certain posts on here using it, and it's well known within the movement. If he has a problem with it I can always edit (I'm sure he's reading this thread).


Well...technically, I think you only have a limited time period in which to edit posts on this forum. But in the case of SanderO, you're probably safe (for the reasons you mentioned above). I just think that in principal, it's a bit disrespectful. Anyway, I guess it's not really worth dwelling on.

Incidentally, I agree with the thrust of your argument in relation to the OP. Farrakhan certainly comes out with some controversial statements - to put it mildly - but for AE911T's members to be objecting (nevermind RESIGNING) in response to Gage and Ryan speaking in front of such a large audience on that basis is pathetic. In fact, I can't think of a single valid reason under any conceivable set of circumstances where I would say "spreading the truth to these people is a bad idea".

Having said that...Gage, Ryan and AE911T have credibility issues of their own, and I personally don't take for granted that everything they say or publish is "the truth".
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
A. Syed
post Feb 23 2012, 07:53 PM
Post #11





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 124
Joined: 17-May 08
Member No.: 3,358



QUOTE (mrmitosis @ Feb 23 2012, 06:01 AM) *
Having said that...Gage, Ryan and AE911T have credibility issues of their own, and I personally don't take for granted that everything they say or publish is "the truth".


I agree, and neither do I.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
SanderO
post Feb 23 2012, 09:11 PM
Post #12





Group: Troll
Posts: 1,174
Joined: 23-December 09
From: NYC
Member No.: 4,814



The problem with your post A Syed is twofold. First it's bad form to use a person's name in a forum where people post with a chosen screen name. Frankly I don't care and have nothing to hide. But, that was simply bad form.

Secondly you don't have the history of my association with AE911T correct. Volunteered in Fall of '09 and was not assigned to any particular team. Suggested BaseCamp for them as a virtual office and Gage liked the idea and had me train the others in the use of Basecamp. It had a discussion forum and I populated it with a few threads on TECHNICAL matters to stimulated discussion about the structure of the three destroyed buildings. No discussion - most on Basecamp were volunteers with no technical background in civil engineering or physics.

Gage was very pleased with my efforts for AE911T which included getting a mission statement and the wording down... planning the 100 Press conference and so forth. He suggested to me that I join the Board. I declined and he insisted and I relented. Once on the board I suggested that AE911T consider using the term - engineered destruction - as opposed to - controlled demolition - when referring to the destruction of the three towers. Gage and Deets liked the idea... Sarns, Cole, Roberts and a few others thought this was a sign that I was an infiltrator set to destroy AE911T from within. They agitated that I be removed from the board and expelled from AE911T.

The board would not yield to ultimatum and suggest a grievance procedure be set up to deal with dispute and allegations of misconduct and wrote a letter to the *reformers* offering such a process. The board then asked me to write the procedure and it was approved and the matter was to be postponed until the 1000 Press Conference was over. The Reformers had refused to work on the press conference and the precedure seemed to be a way to cool things down.

The Reformers decided to go back to work but continued to pressure Gage and expel me from the Board. Gage called me and pleaded with me to resign so the matter would all go away. As I had done nothing wrong I refused and said AE911T should go forward with their grievance procedure.

Justin Keogh and Jon Cole both board members brought up a motion to remove me. It was voted down because they did not have enough votes according to the bylaws. Next they called a secret board meeting. I was not invited or notified. They voted in new by laws which allowed expulsion for no cause and added a board member. Gage suggested Kevin Ryan. At the next meeting I voted Ryan on to the board... it was a unanimous vote. Next order of business was a motion to expel me with not cause, discussion or debate. I was not able to vote and Deets was the only vote not to expel. Ryan who was not even aware of the matter and should have abstained from the vote, voted to expel.

I was removed from the board and from working as a volunteer. I believe that the Reformers were suspended as well. I don't know whether the suspension was lifted.

I then engaged in my own research begining in Feb 2010. I discovered mistakes. misstatements, errors, deceptions or lies... choose your term. I wrote a detailed letter to Gage about one statement in their Blueprint for Truth which demonstrated that they had made an error. Gage said he would look into it and get back to me... He of course, said he liked me personally and professionally etc. He never responded to the letter.

I attended several 911 Truth events and spoke with him personally one on one a few times explaining to him the mistakes and so forth and suggesting he not keep repeating them... such as his statement that there was dust for miles around the site which was from 4-12" thick. As far as I can tell he has not stopped making these false claims.

In 2010 I wrote to Gage and told him that if he persisted in making false statements when he knows them to be so, I wanted my name removed from their petition. It was.

I want a new investigation because NIST and the OCT were inaccurate and deceptive... and not "the truth". On the other hand, AE911T is engaged in the same sort of deception and is essentially a PR operation to make money to stay in business. I've lost respect for the group and for Gage in particular who then wandered into the CIT controversy. AE911T is Gage's career. He's the CEO of AE911T and he's never made so much money nor enjoyed so much fame, credibility and adulation. AE911T does not do research nor consult with the vast majority of the architects and engineers who have signed their petition for anything BUT MONEY.

I know where the skeletons are buried... at least some of them.

By the way... I never used my real name here. Other posters did having dug it up somehow and thought they were being clever using it. I post under my name at Depp Politics on 9/11 topics.

This post has been edited by SanderO: Feb 23 2012, 09:14 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Feb 24 2012, 10:46 AM
Post #13



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



I don't want to turn this thread into the "SanderO Show" (there are too many already), but you have a fan over at True Faction SanderO.

QUOTE
Multiple volunteers quit over this. One ex-volunteer (who quit years ago over another dispute), former board member in fact, now hangs around the911forum and although I disagree with him on a great many things he usually makes more sense on the WTC topic and can explain the matter in more lucid detail than the organization he left.

Snowcrash


You should see the shite being posted over there about Muslims carrying out 9/11 and what I predicted when they had polluted the NOC evidence and the (attempted, failed) attack on the validity of verified pilots and documented research at this forum. The muddying of the waters on the destruction of the towers and WTC7.

Remember this ad which the same people at Blogger and TruthAction got their grimey paws on?



Now what? What the f**k is the next move now that these assholes are on Plan B?

"All 3 towers might have been gravity driven collapses/"explosions may have been transponders"...umm...crazy, extremely lucky Muslims did carry out the 9/11 attacks..blah, blah"

Are the participants in that video aware of who "carries the mantle" for them?

If people can't see the obvious machinations of all of this bullshit, they're either blind or dumb as a box of rocks.

This post has been edited by onesliceshort: Feb 24 2012, 10:48 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Feb 24 2012, 05:24 PM
Post #14





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,920
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



Thanks for all that, SanderO.

It's just a shame that politics and personalities have so much play in human interaction. It seems so many people are more interested in slamming another person than in discovering the truth.

And I agree that it was certainly rude to reveal a poster's name without his permission.

Have a good weekend.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Feb 24 2012, 05:51 PM
Post #15



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



@Amazed!

I must have missed where in all your interactions with SanderO on this forum, you thought he was telling the "truth".

I don't even know how his "thesis" (whatever it is - because even his "initiation of collapse" scenario seems to be very vague) would advance 9/11 truth or the call for a new enquiry.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
A. Syed
post Feb 24 2012, 09:27 PM
Post #16





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 124
Joined: 17-May 08
Member No.: 3,358



[Post updated and a few additional thoughts added. Thanks paranoia for deleting SanderO's name!]

My rudeness toward SanderO probably stems from my frustration with my email inbox having many times been overflowing with emails from him to a particular list serve (from which I recently withdrew), where he argues ad infinitum in favor of his "collapse initiation" scenario. I think that if there is any reason to suspect that SanderO is an operative, it's because of his fervent insistence on the idea that only a small number of explosives near the impact zone were needed to trigger the collapse, and that the rest was gravity-driven from there. (This could serve as fodder for the "al Qaeda snuck past security and planted the bombs" fall back.) I wouldn't suspect your motives for simply wanting to change the wording to "engineered destruction" but frankly I do question your motives when you put forth a thesis that strains credulity and ignores much evidence and testimony, and put many hours week in and week out to promoting it. Anyway, I agree it was in bad form to reveal your name, and a mod and I were able to edit it out, in both posts in which it appeared.

But actually SanderO, I'm not 100% convinced you're an op and maybe it's possible you sincerely believe your thesis. I consider myself as being generous here, as I have a number of friends in the movement who ARE at that 100% point w/r to you.

But anyway. Now that I've gotten my words of criticism and suspicion out of the way, I'll give you props as to where I agree with you. I personally regard many people on the board of directors at AE to be bad news, and likely infiltrators, or else people who started good but were corrupted along the way. There's little doubt in my mind that Justin Keogh is an infiltrator. I don't think it's just chance that the same person is (1) owner of 911blogger (2) BoD at AE and (3) chief technical officer for James Gourley at the International Center for 9/11 Studies. To me, this is a well-placed mole. He's not too visible; whereas probably 95-99% of the movement knows who Richard Gage is, I'd bet those same numbers would give you a blank stare if you mentioned Justin's name to them. However, much like Hoffman and Ashley, Keogh "has the ear" of many people of influence in the movement.

If he acted transparently and honestly, one could accept the possibility that Justin is a passionate truther who put a lot of food on his proverbial plate, combined with a bit of luck in being in the right places at the right time. However, his behavior is shady, to put it mildly. The way they dealt with you at AE is very similar to the way many of us have been shafted by Justin and his colleague Erik Larson at 911blogger. I am pissed as hell that Richard is so naive as to put is faith and trust in Justin, and for Richard to stand by the way Justin has run blogger gives me nausea.

As for Richard's/Justin's colleague Chris Sarns: Sarns has accused me of being an infiltrator and has tried to convince Richard of it too; the reason: I dared discuss holocaust revisionism for several minutes on Kevin B's radio show, after having written a review on Amazon for a book whose author Barrett had interviewed on the show a couple weeks earlier. Sarns insisted to the entire AE911truth list serve (I saw the emails), and also on a comment at 911blogger:

911blogger.com/news/2010-09-19/911-truth-fight-stage-dont-get-hit-sucker-punch#comment-237798

that I must be an operative for gaining credibility by doing good work before blowing it all by (1) promoting CIT and (2) questioning the holocaust. Heck I'll paste it here to save the site from getting more undeserved traffic:

QUOTE
On Kevin Barrett's radio show [Syed] promotes CIT/NSA, bashes Blogger, touts DRG and RG's "glowing endorsements" and ends with questioning the Holocaust. This is psy-ops IMO. Word association works. Adam and Kevin are tying the TM, DRG and RG to "Mossad did it" and Revisionism.
http://www.radiodujour.com/mp3/20100601-ke...d-adam-ruff.mp3


Anyway, Richard Gage has proven himself, for all the architectural expertise he possesses, to be rather people-naive. As someone who wants to be friends with everyone, he got taken in early on by the "buddy ole pal! We'll help ya out with yer website and speaking engagements..."

And before he knew it, he was surrounded by operatives, but living in bliss ignorance. I wonder if in the privacy of his heart he's woken up to how infiltrated his own organization is. Looks like with this weekend's speaking engagement he finally stood up to a few of them.

This post has been edited by A. Syed: Feb 25 2012, 05:36 PM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
mrmitosis
post Feb 25 2012, 04:27 AM
Post #17





Group: Private Forum Pilot
Posts: 228
Joined: 11-February 10
From: Australia
Member No.: 4,909



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Feb 24 2012, 09:46 AM) *
...you have a fan over at True Faction SanderO.


Sliceman - you can't hold SanderO accountable for the fact that Snowcrash has signed up for his cheersquad. Besides, the quote:

...although I disagree with him on a great many things he usually makes more sense on the WTC topic and can explain the matter in more lucid detail than the organization he left... (- Snowcrash)

...hardly qualifies as a ringing endorsement.

Similarly, anything that other posters or trolls at True Faction might have to say about SanderO should not be made his responsibility.

A Syed - if SO is an operative, then he must be the least efficient and worst value for money on the entire payroll. For example, he has exchanged a number of emails with me in an attempt to explain his findings so far - this must have taken up considerable time and energy on his part. Exactly what an infiltrator would hope to achieve by doing this I can't imagine...SO knows that my mathematical expertise is even worse than my scientific expertise, and that I am virtually unknown within the 9/11 Truth community. In spite of SO's patient attempts to guide me through his calculations and logical processes, I am pathetically ill-equipped to grasp barely any of it. And even if I did, I have no credibility in the fields of architecture or engineering so no-one would listen to me if I tried to convince them that SO's thesis is of any merit.

Also, we have just heard that Richard Gage practically had to beg SanderO to join the board. An operative would have leapt at the first opportunity.

SanderO's research needs to be further developed and independently evaluated for a very important reason. To me it is pure fucking logic that the real perpetrators of this crime would use only slightly more than the bare minimum necessary to bring the buildings down - whether that be in the form of DEWs, mini nuclear devices, military-grade incendiaries, backyard-grade incendiaries, common explosives or - yes, we have to consider it - commercial airline strikes and kerosene. One aspect of SanderO's hypothesis which I DO understand is that it seems to suggest that the Factor Of Safety (FOS) in relation to the Twin Towers has been seriously underestimated by Gage and his cohorts. If this can in fact be shown to be the case at some future stage, then it follows that AE911T may well have banked too heavily on the use of high-tech/exotic destructive materials, and therefore reached embarrassingly false conclusions. Clearly, this would be a disaster for AE911T, not to mention the Truth Movement as a whole. Regrettably, if SanderO is indeed correct, then I'm afraid it is already too late to avoid such an outcome. The AE911T locomotive can no longer be put into reverse.

YES, I realise that explosions were reportedly heard. I ALSO realise that iron rich micro-spheres and unreacted thermitic material were discovered in the dust samples, along with other evidence which points to a controlled demolition. I am NOT denying or ignoring this evidence. It is NOT the point I am making here.

I'm somewhat familiar with the discussions which have taken place between OSS and others questioning the validity of SanderO's reasoning. I DO understand the frustration. As it happens, I feel that SanderO has been overly-cautious myself when it comes to accepting what others regard as totally obvious. That's just my opinion, but I commend him for being so rigorous.

But please, let's keep the discussion alive. SanderO's research poses no threat to the Truth Movement, irrespective of its (lack of) validity.

This post has been edited by mrmitosis: Feb 25 2012, 04:30 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Feb 25 2012, 10:50 AM
Post #18



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



QUOTE (MrM)
I'm somewhat familiar with the discussions which have taken place between OSS and others questioning the validity of SanderO's reasoning. I DO understand the frustration. As it happens, I feel that SanderO has been overly-cautious myself when it comes to accepting what others regard as totally obvious. That's just my opinion, but I commend him for being so rigorous.


Hi MrM,

I'm actually in agreement that the towers would have been taken down with the minimum effort possible and that if it were me, I'd take most advantage of the initial impacts to mask other explosions (which were witnessed).

If it were me, I'd initiate the collapse at key points throughout the building (also witnessed and caught on tape).

The thing is, I've even acknowledged that gravity had a part in the collapse but that certain areas were weakened (caught on tape, witnessed, physical evidence) whether by thermitic material or whatever.

I'm about as green as you MrM on the mathematical and scientific aspect but I can't be blinded to witnessed, recorded and physical evidence that contradicts a simple gravity driven collapse.

The final straw for me was when even the flimsy "initiation of collapse" sans explosives/outside influence argument put forward by SanderO was also questioned/made debateable by him on this forum!

I was a bit over the top with the Snowcrash comment, yes, but I was only trying to point out that if SanderO's "thesis" is acceptable to this closet the J.REF, shill fraud and proven liar then I want no part of it. Not because of who is saying it but because SanderO uses the same dismissive opinions as to what the witnesses, recordings and physical evidence shows as snowcrash and his buds.

Not forgetting the Israelis caught by the short and curleys celebrating the first impact before news had reached the airwaves that a plane had actually struck. Or the signs of "explosives" in their van!

This should be decided by a new enquiry or by the "court of public opinion". Nothing should be offhandedly dismissed because it doesn't fit into his theory. And I certainly can't see how such vague claims about the collapses of all 3 towers that would most definitely fall within the "we'll never know" vacuum and be left to exclusive technobabble discussions, would forward our cause, when even a layman can see what happened. Or what didn't.

edit: typos

This post has been edited by onesliceshort: Feb 25 2012, 11:54 AM
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
amazed!
post Feb 26 2012, 12:30 PM
Post #19





Group: Extreme Forum Pilot
Posts: 3,920
Joined: 14-December 06
From: Fort Pierce, FL
Member No.: 331



QUOTE (onesliceshort @ Feb 24 2012, 05:51 PM) *
@Amazed!

I must have missed where in all your interactions with SanderO on this forum, you thought he was telling the "truth".

I don't even know how his "thesis" (whatever it is - because even his "initiation of collapse" scenario seems to be very vague) would advance 9/11 truth or the call for a new enquiry.


My main criticism of SanderO here has been that he seemed to want to have it both ways.

That said, I have always thought he raised many valid and interesting points, and I say that as a layman to the architect and engineer world. Most of his comments and points are a bit too esoteric for me, but I understand his general direction. Maybe that is the "vagueness" you mention.

Eventually he seems to have made it clear that he doubts very much the official story, and in my book, that is the most accurate statement one can make in the discussion.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
onesliceshort
post Feb 26 2012, 04:48 PM
Post #20



Group Icon

Group: Global Mod
Posts: 2,612
Joined: 30-January 09
Member No.: 4,095



QUOTE (Amazed!)
Maybe that is the "vagueness" you mention.


No, I usually stay out of the debates on the towers because they are way over my head (which I've repeatedly stated on this forum), but I wanted to get to the bottom of what SanderO is actually claiming!

I had a healthy debate with him not so long ago and even this layman could see the contradictions.

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10801072

QUOTE (SanderO)
You need to note that buildings such as WTC 7 would have many things exploding if they were on fire.... and they did have massive storage tanks of diesel fuel and it sat atop a Con Ed Sub station... which likely had transformers exploding. So fires alone could not bring any office tower down.. but office fires plus structural damage plus some extra damage... placed there or from things such as thousands of gallons of diesel burning for hours might weaken the steel in the core and set of a progressive collapse. And of course a few well placed explosive devices. Considering that the building was likely a disaster to salvage... taking it down and lumping it in with the rest of the WTC destruction might have motivated someone to actually place those charges... We don't know but that seems like a possibility as well.


He goes into extreme detail outlining a gravity driven collapse, yet makes dismissive, speculative statements when substantiated concerns about evidence of explosive damage/explosions are raised.


I think I held my own:

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10801116

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10801086

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10801099

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10801179

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10801169

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10801282

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10801502

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...&p=10801530

http://pilotsfor911truth.org/forum/index.p...mp;pid=10801553

Why not see if there's any "vagueness" in his answers to my questions yourself?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 




RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 20th September 2014 - 03:56 AM