Support 911Blogger


AE911truth.org Goes to MIT -- Friday, May 16, 2008 -- Paging Mr. Chomsky ...

On Friday, May 16th, 2008, Richard Gage, AIA, will conduct a forum that is open to the public, at MIT, in Room 54-100, starting at 7pm.
http://whereis.mit.edu/map-jpg?mapterms=54-100&mapsearch=go
(Check www.ae911truth.org for any room change)

Below is Gage's invitation;

ARCHITECTS & ENGINEERS
FOR
9/11 TRUTH
Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
www.ae911truth.org

May 12, 2008

Dear Honored Citizen(s):

You are invited to attend a forum at MIT concerning the Collapse of the 3 World Trade Center high-rises on 9/11.

I am the founder of the organization Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth which is a fast-growing collaboration of more than 350 architectural and engineering professionals. The last few years have witnessed the emergence of mounting scientific evidence that the collapses of the Twin Towers and WTC Building 7 were not adequately explained by the official theories outlined in the 2002 FEMA and 2005 NIST reports. The Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth call for a new, fully funded unimpeachable Congressional investigation with subpoena power.

We are dedicated to presenting the evidence that supports our call in this comprehensive presentation.

What the Evidence Shows

Sounds of explosions coming from each of the WTC Twin Towers were heard well before the collapses began. These were reported by over 118 first responders in the FDNY recorded “oral histories” (the release of which was resisted by the City of NY until forced by a New York Times FOIA filing).Numerous accounts of “flashes of light” which commonly accompany the detonation of demolition charges were also reported. Video footage reveals the striking symmetry, explosiveness and rapidity of the Towers’ destruction.This destruction differed from the more classic controlled demolition of WTC 7 in its extreme explosiveness.

Each rubble site contained tons of molten metal “flowing like lava” in the basements – as observed by Leslie Robertson, WTC structural engineer, and numerous other first responders. The temperatures of these flows were far in excess of anything possible from a jet fuel fire or from the burning contents of the buildings. Scientists have determined conclusively that thermate – a high-tech incendiary - was used. Chemical traces of thermate were found in the steel and dust. Each “collapse” exhibited thick billowing pyroclastic dust clouds that rapidly expanded to over ten times the volume of the buildings.Each also showed squibs (explosive ejections of pulverized building materials) easily observed in many of the videos. The twin towers were explained to have “pancaked” down, however there was no stack of floors found at the bottom – nearly everything was blown outside the footprint of the towers in a symmetrical pattern extending 1,200 feet in diameter around each building – and 90,000 tons of concrete , metal decking and floor trusses were completely missing from the debris field.

Most damaging to the official story, WTC building 7 was a 47-story high-rise not hit by an airplane and yet became the 3rd modern steel-framed skyscraper to collapse symmetrically at near free-fall speed on 9/11 – in the exact manner of a controlled demolition with explosives. It collapsed into a neat, compact pile, exhibiting ALL the classic features of controlled demolition:

  • Rapid onset of “collapse”
  • Sounds of explosions at ground floor - a full second prior to collapse
  • Symmetrical “collapse” – through the path of greatest resistance – at near free-fall speed (i.e. the [core] columns offered no resistance)
  • “Collapses” into its own footprint – with the steel skeleton broken up for shipment
  • Massive volume of expanding pyroclastic dust clouds
  • Tons of molten metal found in basement by demolition workers
  • Chemical signature of thermate (a high-tech incendiary) found in slag and dust samples
  • Rapid oxidation and intergranular melting found (by FEMA) in the structural steel samples
  • Expert corroboration from controlled demolition professionals
  • Foreknowledge of “collapse” by First Responders, media, NYPD, FDNY, etc.

You can review all of this evidence and much more online atwww.AE911Truth.org.

Thank you - we look forward to meeting you at the forum!

Sincerely,

Richard Gage, AIA, Architect
Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth

Show "that's DR. Chomsky to you." by darkstar

"Dr." Chomsky has been left-gatekeeping the truth since the

days he helped cover-up the JFK inside job 40+ years ago! He is a fraud & traitor!

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Consider mass emailing truth messages. More info here: http://www.911blogger.com/node/13321

Dr. Chomsky will be on Dr.

Dr. Chomsky will be on Dr. Kevin Barrett's radio program in a couple weeks. He might be shifting his opinion on 9/11. Details soon.

MIT is a wonderfully

MIT is a wonderfully eclectic institution. They not only employ "Dr." Chomsky, but also "Dr." Deutch.

http://mit.edu/chemistry/deutch/biography.html

Deutch stars in this cult classic:

http://video.google.com/videosearch?q=Ruppert+Deutch&hl=en&sitesearch=#

Here's another pre-9/11 classic:

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9904E4DF153DF934A15754C0A...

"The institute operates the Lincoln Laboratory at Hanscom Air Force Base in Lexington, Mass., under contract with the Defense Department to do research into missile defense, weather forecasting, military surveillance and other sophisticated technologies. The lab's contract with the Pentagon was worth $319 million last year."

“On the altar of God, I swear eternal hostility against all forms of tyranny over the mind of man."--Thomas Jefferson

You've hit the nail

on the head.

All of this government influence and funding make it hard (impossible, really) for faculty or other MIT employees to back up Richard Gage. To simply take a stand on 9/11 would mean no tenure, no gov't contracts, and they'd probably ultimately throw you out of a place like MIT.

I once had a job offer from MIT's Lincoln Lab, and still have a friend or 2 there. Real hardcore military stuff. Scads of funding. Yuck.

Many, many thanks go to Richard Gage for getting his foot in the door at MIT. It's time to shake up these damned people.

And don't forget to help out ae911truth.org as much as you can. They're doing great things.

Richard Gage - Media

Good hunting today, Richard

Strength to you. May your arrows fly true.

“On the altar of God, I swear eternal hostility against all forms of tyranny over the mind of man."--Thomas Jefferson

Yeah second that...

The very best of luck and skill with today's presentation, I reckon it will be amazing !!!

I hope it's a complete FULL HOUSE...

I look forward to watching the video (if there is one).

Very best wishes

Go ....

get'em Richard ! Are we going to get a video of this? I hope so !

Newbie

Can someone tell me if this would be a good presentation to go to for someone who is relatively new to all of this ... but willing to listen and try to understand... Or too technical?

Thanks!

In my opinion

Gage's presentations are fine for newbie, nontechnical people. At least he strongly convinced my newbie, nontechnical friend.

Wish i could go.

Go check out his power point video on his website. ae911truth.org You don't have to be an MIT grad to see the obvious.

Gage gets to EVERYONE!

Maybe IQ<75 won't get it. You know the McCain supporters and the last remaining 27%

I'll hopefully be there to

I'll hopefully be there to get video. I put out the video of Dr. Jones discussing "red chips", as well as the full presentation when the Scholars were here in December...

btw

The debunkers are discussing this here.

debunkers?

Can we really call any of those clowns debunkers? Don't people have to refute our arguments in order to deserve that term? Sitting around peeing on our events seems like something else entirely. Oh, and good luck getting Noam "who cares who did 9/11" Chomsky to switch sides now. I like the idea of calling him out though. What a fraud of a man.
:P

debunkers

I don't consider them actual debunkers of course, just the common term that's used.

The sad thing is when one sees them in person and realizes they are mainly just full of anger and fear, and know almost nothing about what they are talking about, or in the case of those who are intelligent or who have been to college at least, are pathological liars and deceivers, willing to use any trick in the book to try to rewrite natural laws to conform to their propaganda.

Change our way of thinking

They are not debunkers they are the ignorant.
It is not the Mainstream Media it is the Corporate Media.
The official story is itself a Conspiracy Theory.

I've spent some time on skepters' boards.

They seem to be a largely brittle people with a great need to feel superior, banding together in a mutual admiration society to giggle at each others' inane jokes.

Argghhh -

I wrote a long answer here for mcfrandy (and others) and the cyber pixies "disappeared" it.

sigh

Oh, well, it will come back to me eventually, or it won't.....

My main point is that most true members of the 9/11 truth movement are real skeptics and critical thinkers, and those in opposition range from the naive to the active (and persistent) deniers (some undoubtedly paid).

In any case, it's not worth getting a headache (or heartache, for that matter) over it, just keep asking questions and demanding answers that make sense.

Love is a verb, brothers and sisters, let's get busier!

The truth shall set us free. Love is the only way forward.

Let's get our semantics straight

Perhaps we should call them "self-styled debunkers" or "pseudo-debunkers."

Aren't we the debunkers?

We are debunking the official story.

This makes my brain hurt

You're right, we're the debunkers. And they're claiming to debunk the debunkers.

And, of course, David Ray Griffin famously debunked the debunkers of us debunkers.

Neither. Keep it simple silly

There is the ignorant (willfully or otherwise) and the informed.

Their best shot at debunking?

Is this their best shot at debunking? The Jrefers are less together than I thought. Good luck with our fellow architects Richard, and just speak with your usual common sense approach.

Frank Zappa observed, "It's not getting any smarter out there. You have to come to terms with stupidity, and make it work for you."

We all need to debunk the debunkers

I completely agree that this JREF thread has NOTHING of any substance.
However, there ARE attempts to debunk 9/11 truth on the JREF forum.

For example, here's a pathetic attempt by Mark Roberts, dated Jan 2007

The PDF is titled "World Trade Center Building 7 and the Lies of the 9/11 “Truth Movement”

http://forums.randi.org/local_links.php?action=jump&id=86&catid=18

The same doc as a a Word file is here
http://forums.randi.org/local_links.php?catid=18

-------------

How did CNN and BBC have foreknowledge of the WTC7 collapse, yet six years later, the government cannot explain it?

Oh no !

Not the 9/11 expert Mark the tour guide Roberts !

While I can see why people

While I can see why people feel they need to be debunked, much of their stuff is distraction and probably can be ignored.

And isn't it telling

that 7 years later some of the "best" counter arguments against our 350 engineers comes from some random guy's pdf presentation, which is about 90% personal attacks and irrelevant dialogue? Surely the NIST has had enough time to put together their official lie, although as we have learned, what they can't spin, they avoid.

"Most propoganda isn't designed to fool the critical thinker, but merely to give everyone else an excuse not to think at all."

:P

Excellent essay on why "debunkers" should be ignored

Seve_B wrote this over a year ago and it's excellent. For the record, I think it's obvious that the JREFers with the super-high post counts are being paid good money to oppose the movement. I think the ones with lower post counts are the ordinary folks.

http://www.911blogger.com/node/6905

Please Ignore the "Debunkers"
When is everyone going to start ignoring these "debunkers"?

It's been awhile since I've gone over to SLC or JREF and read through their forums until the last couple of days, and now I know why: it is a complete waste of time. These people are either paid to oppose us or simply not willing or able to look at and understand the evidence. Either way they are beyond help and you have absolutely zero chance of converting any of them.

To those that fear newbies could stumble upon SLC and be convinced that the OCT is true, I can assure you there is little chance of that happening. The OCT defenders over there do not present persuasive arguments, and spend most of their time spewing ad hominems instead of addressing the real issues. The latest move by Troy of WV - posting Korey Rowe's personal cell phone number and encouraging people to call and harrass him - is but one example of the extreme vindictiveness these people feel towards us. My question again is why even engage these people in debate?

Let them spend all day congratulating themselves on their intellectual prowess. We should be spending our time reaching out to those that have never been exposed to the truth. When I make an effort to reach out to someone new, I am surprised to find that virtually every single time they have never even heard the SUGGESTION that 9/11 is anything other than Bin Laden + 19 hijackers. These are the people we should be concerned about. The mainstream media is not helping, so we have to do it. Forget the debunkers.

Plus, you should have confidence that any newbie who is truly interested in investigating 9/11 for themselves is going to look at more than one source for information. I know I did. I looked for months at all of the "debunking" material I could find. I remember reading through the "Loose Change Viewer's Guide" and breaking out in laugter. I don't know if they have revised it since, but at the time it was a childish attempt at debunking Loose Change. Again, have confidence that newbies will be smart enough to look at the "debunking" materials and see them for what they are - total crap.

In the off chance that a particular newbie is persuaded by the debunking materials, that is 100% fine with me. Coming to grips with the fact that 9/11 was an inside job isn't an easy thing to do. One of my friends used to get angry during debates with me on the subject because he could never effectively counter my points. The last time we debated he just flat out told me he thought what I was saying was legitimate, but that he "didn't want to believe it" because (1) he doesn't want to think our government could be so evil, and (2) if the truth did get out, it would have horrible consequences for our economy, etc. I said ok, and haven't brought it up in conversation since. Like I said, it's not for everyone. It's definitely easier (at the moment) for Americans to live life believing the OCT. Whether that remains true in the future remains to be seen.

For those that want to practice their debating skills and refine their arguments over at the debunking forums, this is only an admirable use of time if you are actually going out into the real world and using those refined skills and arguments to spread the truth to newbies. If you aren't applying your skills in the real world, you probably just enjoy debating the debunkers as a sort of hobby. Please don't. Time is precious in this movement, and your time would be much more effectively spent reaching out to those that have never heard of 9/11 Truth.

Finally, if you ignore the debunkers, the ones that aren't getting paid to do it may just get bored, stop their "debunking" activities altogether and go find something better to do. After all, they don't have the same challenge we have of reaching out to newbies, because the mainstream media spreads their message for them. Can you imagine Mark Roberts going around New York handing out DVDs purporting to prove Osama was behind it? People would tell him "Yeah, I know, I saw that on CNN last night, and the night before that, and the night before that." In other words, because newbies by definition already believe the OCT, the debunkers won't have anything to do with their time if those of us that are already converted stop engaging them in debate.

This blog may be a little late because right now there is a thread over at SLC about how quiet it's been around there and JREF lately, while dz is over here fighting to keep the 9/11 Blogger server up and running due to heavy traffic. We are making progress, people, and ignoring the debunkers can only help.

Some Debunkers are worth our time

kameelyun, that was beautifully said and I agree with virtually everything said.

I agree that the JREF crew are NOT worth our time.

But..... I think we can all agree that it's best to know our opposition.
The JREG crew, SLC and similar groups are STILL, however poorly, the only ones that even attempt to explain WTC7.

If NIST (or their contractors) ever do produce a document on WTC7, we can be well positioned to debunk that if we know roughly what they will say.

I don't think we can ignore all the "debunkers."
Understanding how to debunk the debunkers (as David RAy Griffin has so admirably done) particularly if the "debunkers" are NIST, Chomsky, or Popular Mechanics, will direct us to most persuasively handle objections by real people in the real world.

-------------

How did CNN and BBC have foreknowledge of the WTC7 collapse, yet six years later, the government cannot explain it?

I agree with you. I

I agree with you. I personally find it impossible, on a mainstream site such as Amazon for example, to NOT let a debunker's argument go unchallenged when I know there are impressionable newbies reading. I guess the fine art is being able to oppose the debunkers without taking up too much of one's own time. The debunkers are really like an annoying fly; you ignore it, but when it gets in your face, you have to shoo it away.

In attempt to make sure a debunker never had the last word, I would sometimes spend hours debating debunker shills on various websites. If indeed they are getting paid to oppose, then they are getting paid to make sure the Truther NEVER has the last word. If the debunker persists in out-talking you, there comes a point where you have to say: "OK whatever. It's ridiculous continuing this" and simply have confidence that the fence-sitters can see whose arguments hold up and whose arguments are worthy of "Spin 101" taught by Bill O'Reilly. ;)

Also...

As far as street action, if you're standing on a corner handing out DVDs or something, and a passer-by says: "You realize that Popular Mechanics has done an investigative report debunking you guys' claims," then you should say, if s/he is in a hurry and continuing walking, "Google Popular Mechanics debunked. Go to Amazon and look at 'Debunking 9/11 Debunking.'" It's simple, quick, and when a passer-by cited Popular Mechanics to me in downtown Cincinnati, he was not hostile; he admitted being skeptical of the movement's claims but was happy to take our material. If the person stops to talk, you could mention numerous fallacies in the PM book, such as their explanation that there might have been molten metal because the rubble sat cooking for weeks underground, somehow magically getting one thousand degrees hotter than the world's hottest forest fire. Then, to paraphrase Griffin, perhaps understandably nervous about the debris pile argument, they turn to an even more desperate argument: perhaps there was no molten metal to explain. The melted material was likely glass with unmelted steel rods. This is so absurd given the numerous testimony, even on youtube, of molten metal in the rubble.

It's also helpful, and quick

to mention the firing of the head editor and many of the people below that, who were then replaced by inexperienced youngsers like Benjamin Chertoff (cousin of Michael) and Davin Coburn, whose previous experience was writing high school sports stories at a newspaper in Pennsylvania. Talk about selling your soul to get ahead in life. What an idiot. If you haven't yet seen him get destroyed on air by Charles Goyette, go to youtube and search for his name.

:P

The Chertoff thing is kosher

The Chertoff thing is kosher and legit, however I feel a much stronger argument for PM's book being a government-sponsored publication is the fact that 1) the website of Condi Rice's State Department cites the book as "excellent material debunking 9/11 conspiracy theories" and 2) the book's foreword was written by Republican presidential candidate John McCain.

they're not debunkers,

they're not debunkers, they're blockheads.. and really - don't even waste time with them. It's more important to reach people who haven't been exposed to any of the evidence.. weed out the blockheads.

and chomsky - yeah, forget that fool..

Try this:

The sponsors of this event should publicly promise to reserve two middle front row seats for Professor Chomsky (and a guest of his choice), even in case he's detained and has to show up late.

great idea

I really feel that Chomsky should in particular be held to public account for his actions in disparaging the 911 Truth movement. I have similar feelings about Cockburn, and to a lesser extent Michael Albert and others, although personally, Chomsky's "Who cares? comments really bothered me the most.

Either making Chomsky's absence quite public or having him appear will bring this issue to a head either way as the movement continues to grow on a daily basis.

Btw, kudos to Howard Zinn for his support of 9/11 Truth. :-)