Joe Rogan and Rosie Talk 9/11 Conspiracy Theory - The Rosie Show - Oprah Winfrey Network

Joe Rogan And Rosie O'Donnell On 'The Rosie Show'

"Joe Rogan isn't afraid to get down to the bottom of things on his podcast, The Joe Rogan Experience. Watch as he and Rosie discuss a conspiracy theory surrounding the fall of Tower 7 on September 11, 2001."

"The Rosie Show" airs weeknights at 7 p.m. EST on OWN.

Also covered a bit here:


How about we urge Rosie to have Richard Gage on as soon as possible?

Here is her contact/suggestion form: GET BUSY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

As usual the only aspect of

As usual the only aspect of 911 discussed is CD,thus planting the seed in the minds of the people that the only questions about 911 concern how the buildings fell which always comes down to an expert versus expert debate. And subtly says to people,"you're not smart enough to question 911,leave it to the experts"! It's a form of gate keeping that HELPS to keep 911 covered up.
If someone is were serious about waking people up & exposing 911 they'd say something like this instead,"911 predictable doubled defense spending at a time when people were thinking America no longer needed a Huge military because the cold war was over.It allowed the US to militarily dominate the Middle East so that we now militarily control the flow of oil ensuring our access to it and giving us the ability to deny to any nation we wish (China) or whatever reason. What would defense spending be like today without 911? And why would America still need to maintain a huge Cold war sized military? Who would the enemy be today without 911?"
Of course,that sort of talk wouldn't be allowed in the CIA controlled media because it actually does have the potential to do what the organized 911 Truth Movement claims to want to do. Curiously it isn't very welcome among most of the mainstream Truth Movement.

At least Rogan mentioned evidence

Your proposal only raise the question of ulterior motives, but lacks any shred of evidence to expose the coverup. One can accept the fact that certain factions of our establishment were the only ones to truly benefit from the attacks, but still believe they would never be so callus and/or brazen to do so, and assume that the existing body of evidence proves they didn't. On the other hand, Rogan's comments about WTC 7 are bound to reach the ears at least a few people who are too intelligent to believe that WTC 7 was felled by impact damage and fire alone once they see it, but who've been too sheltered to ever look into the issue until they saw Rogan bring it up. Granted, it would have been nice if he mentioned AE9/11T, and and it would have been great if he could have squeezed in a comment about Unusual Option Market Activity and the Terrorist Attacks of September 11, 2001. Given the constraints he had to work with though, I figure Rogan did a great service to the cause.

Yes,the insider trading is

Yes,the insider trading is good evidence. So is the fact we were informing foreign Governments of our intention to invade Afghanistan as early as March 2001 (BBC 9/18/01,Jane's defense March 20001) Etc,etc,etc.
But notice that none of that ever gets brought up when 911 truth is mentioned in the media. That's my point. It's always CD,narrowly focus just on how the buildings fell & it always ends up as having to be left in the hands of experts.
Imagine if the time spend discussing CD was instead spend talking about these other,undebunkable,'no expert required' aspects of 911 that never get mentioned! There's a reason they never get mentioned you know. Is it because they would work?

Controlled Demolition wins out

Controlled demolition of the WTC towers on 9/11 is increasing comprehended by millions. There is no other area of 9/11 study that is more convincing to average people, and that is why Architects and Engineers for 9/11 Truth has proven to be the most effective organization for waking up the world. I have found no better way to teach a newbie than to show a video outlining the controlled demolition evidence.

Why is CD more convincing

Why is CD more convincing than say learning that the Pentagon was struck at the point farthest from the Military leadership,in a mostly empty section that was the only one that had full fire sprinkler coverage and walls specially reinforced with steel & kevlar designed to resist bomb blasts & absorb energy,contain debris Etc.etc.etc?
There's no 'expert' required to understand it.No group of experts who can write 'peer reviewed' papers that say Truther's are full of it. There's ALWAYS doubt when it comes things that are highly technical,aren't understood by the common man and depend upon 'experts' to explain it to them.If you honestly think going with CD is better than going with the common sense,no innocent explanation,'if only people knew this' things we can PROVE....Then I must question the motives og those who claim that.Sorry. It just seems so obvious to me.

CD wins out.

From my personal experience in talking with way more than one thousand individuals on a one-to-one basis about 9/11, controlled demolition is the best entrance point.

Tom,OK. But this is very


OK. But this is very surface level.

For instance, how much time do you spend talking about the 2 hijackers Nawaf Alhazmi and Khalid Almindar and everything (or anything) about their story compared to the towers?

Do you know their story well enough to tell it?

How much time do spend talking about Sibel Edmonds compared to the towers?


You are probably not talking to building professionals which may be a bit more of a challenge for you. If you were talking to building professionals, I would like to see that translate into more signatures at AE. But AE only has 1,660 or so professionals on the petition.

I am glad that you are confidant in your towers discussions, I would urge you to expand your knowledge now though.

Talking demolitions lacks major components like....whistleblowers.

Many people will be feeling utterly helpless if left to deal with the implications of a who-less demolition of the WTC.

On the flip side, we could empower people with the knowledge of Sibel Edmonds, Robert Wright, Anthony Shaffer, Ali Soufan, coleen Rowley and others. Harry Sammit should be a familiar name to you too.

Good luck

Prepare to be surprised

or not? ... I agree with you.

Mealy mouthed Rogan

"I'm not an architect or engineer"
"maybe it was a crappy building"
"I'm not that smart"

This kind of false confusion and ignorance is not helping the cause Rogan. We're way past this in terms of what is known scientifically and here you are creating the impression that it could have just happened like they said. Grow a pair and state the facts plainly. Rosie is pretty fearless and needs more guests like Gage and Herrit to say what Rogans afraid to say. Sorry but this was just a really disappointing interview. Score one for Cass Sunstein.


Joe Rogan works for Cass Sunstein?

Be careful

Joe Rogan is more than just a Sunstein infiltrator, he's actually a trained ninja cointelpro operative: Kenpo, Kickboxing, a black belt in Taekwando and Brazilian Jujutsu. Look out for that rubber guard!

Oh, bother

At least they're talking about it...but of course that's never good enough. If only he'd "put his career on the line" and announce on his podcast that 9/11 was an inside job. The tide would surely change. LOL.

I think what we've shown Joe Rogan is that we are not the best allies to have. We taught that mealy-mouthed, ignorant, wishy-washy bastard Howard Zinn the same lesson, and look how far that got us!

Joe Rogan

One of my favorite comedians and justice seekers. To bad this CD centric movement got the celebrities with the most potential so focused on theories about how the towers MIGHT have been brought down instead of hard evidence. And the people on this thread acting as though should just say that WE KNOW, it is proven etc. Thank god he figured out that Alex Jones is a big problem and dissociated from him. Joe Rogan and Rosie are cool. Those who push CD theories as facts live in an upside down, isolated world.

edit: R. Gage has dropped the ball on every mainstream tv appearance I have seen of him. "CD ONLY" people and psuedo-leaders hurt the cause of 9/11 justice. If CD mongers would simply be willing to acknowledge the difference between theories and facts, it might be different, but most of the time, I don't here "CD only " folks bring up ANY facts. Just their sexy ideas. "CD centric WITHOUT non-CD facts coupled" public appearances hurt the victims families and their search for justice. It's true....sssssorry (in a Bill Hicks voice).

cs might be on our side

I have read drgs book called. cognitive infiltration

i was automatically anti cs

Initially but having read in drgs book that cs wrote an anti neocon reference i now am open to the possibility that cs is a closet one of us

Humility is a virtue

Rogan proved his ignorance of science when he referred to free-fall as a speed rather than an acceleration, but he also proved honest enough to admit when he is in over his head. I'm sure Sunstein would much rather have people unabashedly spouting on nonsense about things they don't rightly comprehend.

With regard to WTC7 though,

I don't think anyone could be "in over their head". In reality, what's not to understand?

Yes, we can have qualified people point out why NIST's explanation doesn't work, but anyone viewing the videos knows that steel-framed buildings don't sink as a whole as if into quicksand because of some localized damage.

Perhaps he did not want to come across as a "raving truther", which is sad enough, but his comments could nevertheless resonate with moderates who also suspect something's wrong but don't want to get into the heat of a full blown debate. His comment that, "oh, it wasn't free fall, it was 1/10th of a second slower...that's nice...that makes me feel so much better.." lol, makes up for any of his other equivocating, imo. :-)

courage needed

Acting like confusion could explain the BBC announcing WTC 7 was down before it went down is paricularly lacking in courage.


Totally agree, sick of this wishy washy BS. He knows what's up and like he said his career is just him being himself he has nothing to lose.

"Wishy washy BS"?

Way off base Abby

Joe Rogan tells it like it is and has so FOR YEARS. He reaches a huge audience and spreads the truth.

Shame on Rogan. He should

Shame on Rogan. He should talk about project blue beam and no plane at the pentagon ;)

We have actual physical evidence that the wtc steel melted

Such a pity that i cant view this video from my country, i was really interested in watching it.

You are not missing anything

You are not missing anything

Show "Mr. Rogan" by Flicker


Annoying that Joe Rogan is constantly going back and forth on this, I hate when people defer to the excuse "I'm not an architect so how can I know."

Related to

"I'm not a scientist"...

I like to say "Then become one". Or at least try. It comes with consequences for belief systems, though.

Why Does It Have to Be Left Up to Experts?

What's to understand? Dan Rather got it. I wonder what his background is? Basically, he has a Bachelor's degree in journalism. Rather said on 9/11 as we all know: “Amazing, incredible, pick your word. For the third time today, it’s reminiscent of those pictures we’ve all seen too much on television before, where a building was deliberately destroyed by well placed dynamite to knock it down.”

Short bio Dan Rather: He entered Sam Houston State College in Huntsville, Texas with the hope of winning a football scholarship. He never achieved the gridiron glory he dreamed of, but he made important progress toward a career in journalism, editing the college paper and working part time at a small radio station. While still in college he worked as a reporter for Associated Press and United Press International.

So he is no rocket scientist.

It Doesn't.

Anyone with eyeballs and honesty can tell that Building 7 is identical to other implosions when seen side-by-side.

Anyone can see that the towers are exploding outside their perimeters - not collapsing.

Gravity cannot explain the debris at GZ, including the distribution of human remains.

Anyone can learn that office fires cannot melt steel, which requires 2,750 degrees F.

And office fires cannot melt concrete, which requires 3,200 - 4,500 degrees F.

I think SC is referring to

the beliefs that some (many) people hold about what happened at the Pentagon on 9/11.

I'm not a scientist and yet I can perfectly understand why the 3 buildings in NYC were demolished on purpose through some form of CD.

I can also understand that a big plane did crash at the Pentagon on 9/11. Not that that would make any difference in my overall belief about 9/11 being a falseflag op set up by unknown folks behind the curtains.

I cannot seem to watch this clip it seems. It's blocked in the country where I live (Netherlands). At least it is now, at this moment.

It's not really about CD or all the other information that is readily available for anyone to look up and look at.
It's about the fact that we as a whole seem too afraid to look at the truth, the reality of what's happened (not just on 9/11 but many other significant "occurences) and is happening up to this moment.
I cannot see or envision any real change, without either things getting much worse than they already are at this time or without some kind of divine spirit that will take hold of people, wake them up, follow their heart and do the right thing(s).
Most people have just been pumped with so much fear all of their lives, and the mere thought that there are people outthere that will ruthlessly kill 1000's by blowing up 2 steel skyscrapers and then claim it happened because of natural causes, thereby overruling existing scientific laws of physics, of which there is, astoundingly, almost no reaction from the scientific community, that thought will make people, or at least me, pretty scared.

I'm glad though, to see that people are fighting and standing up against it. So many good people willing to take a stand, it takes courage to do that.
I do the little things, try to keep myself informed and a little prepared for what's to come, enjoying my life in the meantime, but it's though at times.
It's never too late though to turn things around, until it's too late. That's a scientific fact (I think :) )


I'm not involved in the (specific) exchange above. As for WTC 7, whether or not it was demolished intentionally by means other than the plane impacts and the subsequent collapses, it is and will always be a Black Swan Event.

Black Swoon

More is the pity for those that swoon affectedly when faced with reality like a corseted Victorian fainting in the parlor because, as Socretes said: " the life which is unexamined is not worth living...."

Socrates also said

“I would rather die having spoken in my manner, than speak in your manner and live.”

— Apology



Black swan events

Black swan events were characterized by Nassim Nicholas Taleb in his 2007 book (revised and completed in 2010), The Black Swan. Taleb regards almost all major scientific discoveries, historical events, and artistic accomplishments as "black swans"—undirected and unpredicted. He gives the rise of the Internet, the personal computer, World War I, and the September 11 attacks as examples of Black Swan Events.

The term black swan derives from a Latin expression—its oldest known reference comes from the poet Juvenal's characterization of something being "rara avis in terris nigroque simillima cygno" (6.165). In English, this Latin phrase means "a rare bird in the lands, and very like a black swan." When the phrase was coined, the black swan was presumed not to exist. The importance of the simile lies in its analogy to the fragility of any system of thought. A set of conclusions is potentially undone once any of its fundamental postulates is disproved. In this case, the observation of a single black swan would be the undoing of the phrase's underlying logic, as well as any reasoning that followed from that underlying logic.

Juvenal's phrase was a common expression in 16th century London as a statement of impossibility. The London expression derives from the Old World presumption that all swans must be white because all historical records of swans reported that they had white feathers. In that context, a black swan was impossible or at least nonexistent. After a Dutch expedition led by explorer Willem de Vlamingh on the Swan River in 1697, discovered black swans in Western Australia, the term metamorphosed to connote that a perceived impossibility might later be disproven. Taleb notes that in the 19th century John Stuart Mill used the black swan logical fallacy as a new term to identify falsification.

Not an endorsement, just a contribution.

We've gone with a narrow

We've gone with a narrow focused 'CD only' approach for years now. Here's what it's gotten us. At the largest Truth action,in the second largest city in America(LA),on the significant 10th anniversary that fell on a weekend (Sunday),we didn't have enough people to hold up 3 banners! What does that tell you about about how current CD 1st approach is working? Worst yet,it's a marked reduction from the number of people present on the 9th anniversary. The narrow focus CD 1st approach is working against us! like I've been saying for years.

This is sadly right on!

Case and point!

Everyone should be trying to broaden their knowledge.

9/11 is complex, and is far from some simple idea like "inside job."

The sooner people realize that, that sooner we can get back on track for true justice of 9/11.

There is so much more than demolitions!

Yes, this is how we evolve

The Facts First Approach:

Demolition, building falling theories presented publicly are simply NOT ENOUGH ON THEIR OWN at this point. People have heard piles of theories about CD. Let me repeat that,


Regardless of whether people have heard about CD theories from lying debunkers, most Americans ARE aware that theories of demolitions on 9/11 exist. So why do we not move forward as a movement when so many people have heard about these demolition theories? It is because most people have reached the "I have heard it all" phase towards CD and 9/11 Truth for that matter. Thus, regardless of how compelling the evidence, most American's will think to themselves 'well, since I have heard about it, well then it must have been already investigated, considered, studied, and PROVEN FALSE.' Even though this last thought would be untrue, this reaction is happening everywhere. It's sad because there is validity to some of these CD theories. If your theory is: A general awareness that there are questions about how the buildings came down will drive the average person to dig deeper into 9/11 to the point where they start to demand a new investigation, learn the whole subject etc.

Your theory seems to be proving itself wrong, simply because the demand isn't happening NOW.

BUT WAIT...We do have a one way to thoughtfully encourage people to dig deeper into 9/11 AND encourage proper research of valid CD evidence if that's your flavor.

It is that YOU MUST talk about other aspects of 9/11 Truth besides demolition theories EVERY TIME you want to discuss 9/11 Truth publicly. I'm sorry but it is A MUST! If people feel that demolitions are the only area, or even the primary area of substance that 9/11 Justice seekers have to offer, 9/11 Truth will continue to lose support.

The good thing is, people are more ready than ever to acknowledge the broader range of issues regarding the truth of 9/11. The average person is ready for a few good TANGIBLE facts available so that this matter can't be dismissed as simply, "people who think explosives brought down the towers." 9/11 Truth has facts like prior knowledge, following/identifying of hijackers, insider trading, investments, ISI connections, etc...


You'll notice the word theory didn't appear in that last capitalized sentence. Personally I feel it's a bit audacious and potentially insulting to go into a "theory first" approach publicly when touching upon a subject so sensitive to most. Think of how sensitive it is to you! Shouting 'what happened to building 7?!' at Giuliani is simply NOT WORKING. Why insult peoples intelligence by not presenting a hard fact first? If a theory is to be discussed, it should only happen after people have THE FACTS! "Facts first" opens minds. Then if it really seems productive, get into your theories. It should be repeated that this methodology I am suggesting is not just in regard to public tv/media/street action appearances (places where it is always deadly to stay focused on a theory and not keep the focus on facts), but this approach is critical in all outreach to friends and family as well.

"Facts first" is the only way 9/11 Truth can earn the credibility it so desperately needs.

Women of the Year

Coleen Rowley got on the cover of Time Magazine based on facts and where did it get her? Just what kind of facts are you talking about and what is your perceived audience?


And Richard has not even gotten that, so what facts are you talking about?

Why Critcize?

I am not criticizing Rowley, although I do think she is a little naive for someone who ran with the big dogs. I just stated a subjective fact that she didn't make any deep inroads vis a vis getting an investigation. So then you drag Gage into the fray. Gage does what he does, that is his schtick. If you notice anything about him you will see that he is kind of a nervous introvert and relies heavily on his script to get through his presentations so it is hard for him to innovate. As for his efficacy, I think he does pretty well. If you step back and look at what he is doing you will realize that, basically, he is running a survey. Surveys are tough. In the restaurant business, one fueled by perception as much as quality, owners and managers say that they get about a one percent response on customer satisfaction queries. It is tricky for businesses trying to define their clientele to get any kind of response. That is why you often see little premiums sent along with surveys and queries. Time magazine used to send a little wooden pencil along with subscriptions solicitations as much for the convenience of their prospective clients as an inducement (psychologists have discovered it doesn't take much of an inducement to create a nagging sense of obligation). So given the challenge of getting responses; I think Gage does pretty well. According to Super Survey Knowledge Base: "Low response rates are a continuing problem for survey organizations. Some people simply refuse to participate in surveys, while others, for a wide range of reasons, cannot participate. Still, a well-designed survey, coupled with incentives and techniques to elicit response, can help guarantee a healthy response rate." Gage is, in effect, running a professional organization that has a public outreach. Within the subset of people he is trying to reach he is doing quite well. At the time of this writing AE911 has about 1663 responses from professional Architects and Engineers. I don't know what the menu mix is between Architects v. Engineers on his site but considering the numbers of professionals in those fields in the U.S. I think that he is polling pretty well: especially if you factor in the climate of fear ("you are with us or you are with the terrorists") that has been engendered in this country.

As far as a fact base approach goes; I am serious, who is the perceived audience and what facts are you proposing to discuss.
That is an earnest enough question. If you have facts they need to be zingers. Really, you have to get the audience's attention and hold it and facts tend to be dull. Despite taking American History several times I still don't know the whole story about "Tippecanoe and Tyler Too!" and I am not stupid (even though I do say so myself.) I have listened to all the presentations by by psychologists about 9/11 because having a degree in that field I feel some kind of academic obligation but I must tell you that most of them are boring and soporific. Between you and me and everyone else on this site we all know what went down on 9/11. However, to tell the truth, I still don't know where Cheney was in that bunker although I have heard the story several times. I don't know if he was taking a leak, calling his wife, or on the bat phone doing something illegal. But I do know this: "does the order still stand?"

Then on top of all this you have to deal with the cultural reticence. That is the enemy. It is both the enemy of truth and the enemy of humanity. People are blind to the "culture" that is around them. Go into your local drug store or super market and take a look at all the magazines like People and Us and all that other stuff. Who is this stuff for? If you have to live your life vicariously then what the hell is the point. We live in a tractor pull society. I have said this before. We have the NFL, the WWF, tractor pulls, NASCAR, and a whole bunch of other spectacular diversions. What is ironic and sad at the same time is that people purposely go to building demolitions or watch them on TV and yet when they are told they didn't see one they believe it. That is the problem right there. We are talking about people who will spontaneously as a group rise up on their feet, at any given spectacle, and cheer for: a slam dunk, a Hail Mary pass, Big Foot crashing into the crowd, a double play and yet these people who thrive on spectacle are clueless when they see the orchestrated crash of buildings on 9/11. So where is the starting point: a timeline? I have seen things on 9/11 timelines that are so creepy they make the glands in my neck swell up but I don't look at them much and the public won't. But there is no getting away from the spectacle in our tractor pull society like why when little Georgey is reading about a pet goat does he look like he swallowed a peach pit?

Don't lecture me....

..about Richard Gage.

I am the team leader for Verifications. I am the one (along with a couple team members) responsible for making the numbers turn on the website of

Spare the babble:

Gage is, in effect, running a professional organization that has a public outreach

Well, I kow you aren't a volunteer within ae, you want to start there, or do want to hope some more?

So What is Your Point?

You asked me a direct question and I took the time to answer it to the best of my ability and I get a surly answer? Just what is your point?

The point is:

...Don't pit Coleen Rowley up against CD.

Because it is a loss at this point.

Still no answer?

You broke into the thread wherein I was asking an earnest question and I still don't have an answer. The question was: "Just what kind of facts are you talking about and what is your perceived audience?"

Oh come on

There are facts besides CD. This 'taunt' is supposed to goad him into spending hours compiling a list especially for you?

There more than 20,000 blog entries at 911blogger. I suggest you take a look around.

The perceived audience is the general public. What is this, twenty questions?

The Person I Queried Didn't Respond

NorCalTruth broke into a thread and said something that I perceived as negative about Richard Gage. I then pointed out that despite not being a media Super Star Richard Gage is "tracking" the kind of results you might expect in any kind of survey and that that is a plus especially when you consider that he is doing everything in house and doesn't have the service of say a Price Waterhouse like many corporations use; that is a positive. Another plus is the inroads into academia of concepts like state crimes against democracy (scads). Mickey Huff and Peter Phillips, as you know, have a toe hold on the Pacific network another plus. So, basically, I was responding positively to a negative statement NCT made: "And Richard has not even gotten that, so what facts are you talking about?"

As far as twenty questions go NCT didn't help the sake of brevity when he accused me of "babbling" and naturally I am going to respond to that because it is an insult and not true. Also, his throwing out a couple of fragmentary sentences didn't help my understanding at all: "...Don't pit Coleen Rowley up against CD. Because it is a loss at this point." So there is your "twenty questions."

In regards to the first question posited on KDUBs part of the thread. There is nothing wrong with that question, at all. It is an honest question and as you suggest I wasn't looking for a laundry list for an answer. I was following the thread assiduously and noticed that some people were trying to force a paradigm shift through. There is nothing wrong with that. My question, and it is the same kind of question that you would be asked in a public relations class (because that is what they are talking about) was what kind of facts were they intending to focus on and what was the target audience.

Personally, in my opinion, I think that factual information has a tendency to be arcane. That is my opinion and I think it is a good one. Of course you are welcome to your own. You stated yourself that: "There more than 20,000 blog entries at 911blogger." And by the way, I have read many of them and even though I have the gist of what went on I still often get confused by the facts like in a spy movie with a double switch-back plot because that is what we are looking at. As far as CD goes what is wrong with pimping out a spectacle to a culture that is driven by the same? As far as facts go, probably everyone knows them or have heard them; after all they are all right there on page 3 below the fold. The challenge is to get people to see
what they saw in the first place sans layers of wool over their eyes. Why not CD? Compare and contrast the collapse of the Twin Towers with building Seven. There are orders and orders of magnitudes different in those collapses and that is the whole story right there.

Contrary to the general sentiment

... I don't recommend dropping CD research or minimizing it, even though I do have misgivings which I won't air here, all it would accomplish is a to drive a big wedge between the 911blogger user community.

Some may suspect that those arguing less emphasis on CD simply don't believe in it.

Even if that were true, it's evident to me that the general attitude among most truthers is that CD should be front and center. All you need to do is look at WTC 7, and you're sold, they exclaim.

Well, sorry, no. This overemphasis and tunnel vision has led to a shocking lack of general knowledge about 9/11 as a whole, and the many issues raised by the 9/11 families. There is a constant yearning for more research, more facts, more publicity and more effort put into CD, and as a result, a giant dung hill of misinformation and ignorance regarding other issues continues to float around in the hallways and back alleys of 9/11 Truth City.

Diversification is an imperative, but not only is CD considered to be sufficient and, in fact, exhaustive in terms of 9/11 research, CD is cited as evidence countering and nullifying all other avenues of inquiry, derided as 'limited hangout', 'LIEHOP', and 'reinforcement of the official story'. To say I'm not too happy about that would be a generous understatement.

I see a pattern here. And that pattern is Northwoods, cell phone fakery, CD, flyover, remote control and shootdown, with varying degrees of acceptance, and I know which prolific author seen as the spiritual father of the 9/11 Truth Movement is to thank for that.

Oh and by the way, the debunker community is teaming with anticipation about a nanothermite debunking in the making, where they will claim the chips were not TNEMEC but floor joist paint from LaClede. (I don't think they can truly pull it off, but if they get published, you have yourself a published rebuttal) I suggest the 9/11 Truth Community start preparing and bracing for impact. Much more might have been achieved in this area, in the form of TEM, FTIR and additional analysis, had it not been sidelined by 'Overunity' and 'Fake Earthquake Machines'.


Excuse me for being short.

I said "spare me the babble" about Gage because I have worked side by side with Richard for years, I am a team leader in the group of volunteers.

Your comment:

Gage is, in effect, running a professional organization that has a public outreach

Is in conrtadiction to my experience within the group.

So, sorry to sound negative, but I don't care for outsiders of the working group trying to tell me how it is.

ae is good. But it ain't great.

Thanks for the reply......

And, not to beat a dead horse, I think we had a misunderstanding. By professional organization I meant "professional organization: is usually a nonprofit organization seeking to further a particular profession, the interests of individuals engaged in that profession, and the public interest." (source: Wikipedia) I get the feeling that you thought I meant a professionally run organization and that you were frustrated by such a stylization.

hi norcal

Thx for the ae work u do. Hi from london uk